| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2005 10:48:50 AM |
| Object: |
40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.
Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics".
The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect
in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which
have been declining since 1991.
We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead would-be rapist at her feet.
When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense-give
them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields,
Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart
surgery.
One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms
expertise.
The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.
The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
These phrases; "right of the people peaceably to assemble ", "right of the
people to be secure in their homes", "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people",
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people."all refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms." refers to the state.
"The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and
seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that
Constitution.
Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.
Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because
they are military weapons.
In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government
forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible
for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone
could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns
is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.
Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult
to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
Women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with gun is
"an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."
Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.
A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of
the population supported owning slaves.
Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon
of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because
it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of
handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the
Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.
Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic
who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.
We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because
it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.
Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police
are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police
are not responsible for their protection.
Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled
with cops, need a gun.
"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive
purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty
weapon.
Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
.
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 03:41:29 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv6iem$vp8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv5vfd$426$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 12:46:49 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 01:40:42 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv81ip$49j$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must be
a lie. Otherwise, you might have to question your view of reality and
clearly you are incapable of doing so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 02:32:35 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 03:32:05 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth, and whining that it's a lie isn't going to
change that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 05:13:03 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 05:34:36 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv8h5v$2ri$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION
DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to
lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Wrong, you have repeatedly asserted I was a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
19 Feb 2005 10:09:00 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv8h5v$2ri$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION
DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to
lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Wrong,
There you go again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:37:24 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv92gr$voc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv8h5v$2ri$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION
DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person
is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to
lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I
and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of
what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not
your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which
must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Wrong,
There you go again.
Ray do you really think that snipping out what I say is going to convince
anyone that what you say is in any manner true? They can easily see who is
running away and hiding from the other's comments and who is addressing the
other's comments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 12:43:13 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION
DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person
is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to
lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I
and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of
what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not
your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which
must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Wrong,
There you go again.
Ray do you really think that snipping out what I say is going to convince
anyone that what you say is in any manner true?
Do you really think that your irrational denials are going to convince
anybody that you're not a liar? Every time you don't like reality you
start lying and then blame others for calling you on it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 01:15:03 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cvalo1$phi$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even
remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION
DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person
is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to
lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I
and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of
what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not
your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which
must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Wrong,
There you go again.
Ray do you really think that snipping out what I say is going to convince
anyone that what you say is in any manner true?
Do you really think that your irrational denials are going to convince
anybody that you're not a liar?
Irrational denial? The only irrational denial is yours where you reject what
you don't want to hear and call it a lie. You've never shown that I've lied,
you've only asserted it without support. I'm not sure who you think you're
going to convice but it's not going to be many.
Every time you don't like reality you
start lying and then blame others for calling you on it.
No I blame you for refusing to consider anything that disagrees with your
World view by asserting it is a lie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:50:04 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv8h5v$2ri$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION
DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to
lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Wrong,
There you go again.
Yet more proof that Fischer is incapable of rational thought.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:49:37 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv87p2$h7q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what
the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your
view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must
be
a lie.
If what YOU claim is not the truth then YOU are the liar. Whining
that other people call you on your lies doesn't make you honest.
Except what I claim is the truth,
Except that I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Oh yea. How truly pathetic....
Put up or shut up, you pathetic excuse for a thinking human being...
You're a liar, Fischer. And you probably know it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:48:28 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is
lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
What reality would that be? It must be one different than the one I and
everyone else but you live in.
Nope, your problem is if an answer doesn't conform to your idea of what the
reality really is (no matter how factual the answer) then it's not your view
of reality that's the problem, but the facts presented to you which must be
a lie.
If what YOU claim
You claim nothing.
This is not sufficient to prove anything.
Get a brain and then we can talk. Otherwise, ***** freak.........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:47:25 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is lying.
Every time reality doesn't agree with what you want you resort to lying.
Ray "Fuckwit" Fischer never heard of an abortion he didn't like:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:46:29 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv6iem$vp8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cv5vfd$426$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Where I live nuclear weapons cost more than....ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Oh? How much do they cost?
Several Billion for the first......
You really shouldn't lie so often since you're so bad at it.
Everytime you get an answer you don't like....you claim the person is lying.
Ray Fischer is the epitomy of chronic abusive trolling stupidity.
That might explain it...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 02:37:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:20:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) thought hard and said:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Maaxx wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If you're going to resort to the "Founding Fathers: argument then
the weapons they were referring to were front-loading muskets and
pistols and cannons. Want to limit people's right to own just
those weapons?
Do you think that the First Amendment was restricted to town criers
and word of mouth or that, somehow, the FFs envisioned radio, TV
and the internet?
So the 2nd amendment allows people to own whatever weapons they can
afford. No government restrictions.
This has already been explained to you, ad nauseum.
Yeah, when the 2nd amendment says that the right to bears arms shall
not be infringed, it doesn't really mean that. It means that the
government can't take away YOUR guns. It can only take away the
weapons that you don't like.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon that
they can afford.
No I'm not. I am saying that the Second Amendment already allows Americans
to own any weapon they want. Obviously citizens shouldn't be allowed to
own weapons such as nukes, so the Constitution should be amended.
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray? Where do you live?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 04:01:49 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) thought hard and said:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If you're going to resort to the "Founding Fathers: argument then
the weapons they were referring to were front-loading muskets and
pistols and cannons. Want to limit people's right to own just
those weapons?
Do you think that the First Amendment was restricted to town criers
and word of mouth or that, somehow, the FFs envisioned radio, TV
and the internet?
So the 2nd amendment allows people to own whatever weapons they can
afford. No government restrictions.
This has already been explained to you, ad nauseum.
Yeah, when the 2nd amendment says that the right to bears arms shall
not be infringed, it doesn't really mean that. It means that the
government can't take away YOUR guns. It can only take away the
weapons that you don't like.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon that
they can afford.
No I'm not. I am saying that the Second Amendment already allows Americans
to own any weapon they want. Obviously citizens shouldn't be allowed to
own weapons such as nukes, so the Constitution should be amended.
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
21 Feb 2005 01:41:01 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-20, Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) thought hard and said:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
[deletia]
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
Median house price doesn't mean anything. At best, it means that
you've just got a higher class of consumer in hock up to their eyeballs.
I've you've got a million in those parts, you REALLY can't afford
to squander any of it.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 07:54:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:01:49 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) thought hard and said:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Maaxx wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If you're going to resort to the "Founding Fathers: argument then
the weapons they were referring to were front-loading muskets and
pistols and cannons. Want to limit people's right to own just
those weapons?
Do you think that the First Amendment was restricted to town criers
and word of mouth or that, somehow, the FFs envisioned radio, TV
and the internet?
So the 2nd amendment allows people to own whatever weapons they can
afford. No government restrictions.
This has already been explained to you, ad nauseum.
Yeah, when the 2nd amendment says that the right to bears arms shall
not be infringed, it doesn't really mean that. It means that the
government can't take away YOUR guns. It can only take away the
weapons that you don't like.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon that
they can afford.
No I'm not. I am saying that the Second Amendment already allows Americans
to own any weapon they want. Obviously citizens shouldn't be allowed to
own weapons such as nukes, so the Constitution should be amended.
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
I take it you are not one.
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
I am fully aware of the price of a house in San Jose, Ray. I did not
know you lived near it, however.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:27:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:01:49 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
No, that is where your provider is.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:57:30 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
No, that is where your provider is.
No, Sonic is actually based in Santa Rosa. I live near San Jose,
about 100 miles to the south.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
21 Feb 2005 11:32:48 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cvbblq$91m$1@bolt.sonic.net:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording*
their nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
No, that is where your provider is.
No, Sonic is actually based in Santa Rosa. I live near San Jose,
about 100 miles to the south.
California. That explains a lot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
21 Feb 2005 12:08:55 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cvbblq$91m$1@bolt.sonic.net:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be
*affording* their nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Are you a millionare, Ray?
What business is it of yours?
Where do you live?
It's in the header of my articles. Near San Jose, California.
Where the median proce of houses is $610,000.
No, that is where your provider is.
No, Sonic is actually based in Santa Rosa. I live near San Jose,
about 100 miles to the south.
You stated for him to look at your header. Your header indicates where
your provider is located not you. I could get the same the header that
you have by using Sonic as my provider and paying for long distance. It
would not indicate where I am.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
20 Feb 2005 06:44:58 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If you're going to resort to the "Founding Fathers: argument then
the weapons they were referring to were front-loading muskets and
pistols and cannons. Want to limit people's right to own just
those weapons?
Do you think that the First Amendment was restricted to town criers
and word of mouth or that, somehow, the FFs envisioned radio, TV
and the internet?
So the 2nd amendment allows people to own whatever weapons they can
afford. No government restrictions.
This has already been explained to you, ad nauseum.
Yeah, when the 2nd amendment says that the right to bears arms shall
not be infringed, it doesn't really mean that. It means that the
government can't take away YOUR guns. It can only take away the
weapons that you don't like.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon that
they can afford.
No I'm not. I am saying that the Second Amendment already allows Americans
to own any weapon they want. Obviously citizens shouldn't be allowed to
own weapons such as nukes, so the Constitution should be amended.
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Snort. Where I live being a millionare isn't even remarkable.
Bingo. You're a capitalist, wealth-loving hypocrite.
***** Fischer, you baby killing liberal liar....
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
(HEH, doesn't that post cover a multitude of hypocrisies....)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
17 Feb 2005 04:59:28 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider wrote:
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon
that >> they can afford.
No I'm not. I am saying that the Second Amendment already allows
Americans to own any weapon they want. Obviously citizens shouldn't
be allowed to own weapons such as nukes, so the Constitution should
be amended.
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be affording
their nuclear weapons anyway?
Oh, don't you know that one can pick one up from the local black market
without a background check? ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
17 Feb 2005 11:14:55 AM |
|
|
On 2005-02-17, Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:51:30 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cv1aob$4v9$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cuud0n$9vc$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:currho$iiv$1@bolt.sonic.net:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
[deletia]
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon that
they can afford.
No I'm not. I am saying that the Second Amendment already allows Americans
to own any weapon they want. Obviously citizens shouldn't be allowed to
own weapons such as nukes, so the Constitution should be amended.
And how exactly, are these private citizens going to be *affording* their
nuclear weapons anyway?
Some private citizens are richer than many NATIONS.
--
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
17 Feb 2005 07:27:03 AM |
|
|
On 2005-02-17, Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cuud0n$9vc$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:currho$iiv$1@bolt.sonic.net:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
[deletia]
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment allows ownership of all weapons.
So you're insisting that people should be free to own any weapon that
they can afford.
See any problems with that?
Not really.
Those that can afford the really expensive weapons either have
a vested interest in preserving the status quo or can import their own
military grade weapons in the same supply chain they get their drugs from.
They're either respectable pillars of the community or can't be
stopped anyways.
--
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
15 Feb 2005 12:48:44 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-15, Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If you're going to resort to the "Founding Fathers: argument then the
weapons they were referring to were front-loading muskets and pistols
and cannons. Want to limit people's right to own just those weapons?
Do you think that the First Amendment was restricted to town criers and
word of mouth or that, somehow, the FFs envisioned radio, TV and the
internet?
So the 2nd amendment allows people to own whatever weapons they can
afford. No government restrictions.
Do you have any clue what serious infantry arms cost?
--
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
15 Feb 2005 09:03:15 PM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If you're going to resort to the "Founding Fathers: argument then the
weapons they were referring to were front-loading muskets and pistols
and cannons. Want to limit people's right to own just those weapons?
Do you think that the First Amendment was restricted to town criers and
word of mouth or that, somehow, the FFs envisioned radio, TV and the
internet?
So the 2nd amendment allows people to own whatever weapons they can
afford. No government restrictions.
Do you have any clue what serious infantry arms cost?
Yes. Do you know how many people can afford to spend $100,000,000 on weapons?
Quite a few.
Do you know how many can afford $5,000 for a surface-to-air missile?
A hell of a lot.
But you don't want the government telling you what weapons you may
own.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
