In article <-dGdnZSXhOmlhWjcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051936101868%spam@aol.com...

In article <E-6dnZF5Ye2bsmncRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051426486775%spam@aol.com...

In article <YYidncW5Y4vgvmncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051307472278%spam@aol.com...

In article <-fOdnVP124CrjWncRVn-qg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050947166061%spam@aol.com...

In article <tNidnc-aLN-Ef27cRVn-rg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050934169288%spam@aol.com...

In article <-KKdnRNICapNQ27cRVn-jQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050923059003%spam@aol.com...

In article <10v7n48ooa9cp03@corp.supernews.com>,
SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cgu5v09ujgpej8p4ljo9k3v59e1brfq22l@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:26 -0500, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes:

What part of he wants to ban ANY particular gun at
all
confuses
you?

The claim was that he doesn't want to ban all guns,
not
anything
to
do
with banning any particular gun. Your 'response'
was
non-responsive.

Pardon me, but Mike Moore _DID_ say that he prefers
to
have
certain
items that he and the liberal front doesn't like
BANNED!

Those certain items don't include all guns, so the
response
was
unresponsive.

Tell us all again, why ANY particular weapon should
be
banned.

Lack of need? Danger to society?

1) Feel free to demonstrate that a "lack of need" is
a
valid
reason
for
banning anything.
By the way, you really don't "need" a car,
since
you
can
use
public
transit
So let's ban cars.
You really don't need soap and deodorant,
people
have
survived
without them for millenia
So let's ban soap and deodorants
Your really don't "need" electric light bulbs,
people
have
survived
without them for millenia
So let's do away with light bulbs and
electricity
while
were
at
it.

2) Feel free to demonstrate that any particular
weapon
is
a
danger
to
society

All handguns are a danger to society.

How?

They allow indiscriminate killing.

So do a lot of other things, but I don't see you pushing to
have
them
banned.

Maybe you aren't watching close enough. I am pushing to have
them
banned, too.

Really? You're seeking to ban gasoline?

<Yawn> Not really the same, is it?

It is when you are talking about indiscriminate killing

Julio Gonzalez (87) Cuban born Gonzalez came to the United States
in
the
1980 Mariel boat lift. Ten years later, in a fit of jealousy, he
killed
eighty-seven partiers. ***** at his ex-girlfriend, Lydia
Feliciano,
who
was dancing with someone else, Julio bought a buck's worth of
gasoline
and
torched the Bronx's Happy Land Social Club killing nearly everyone
inside.
Only six survived. As luck would have it, one of them was lucky
Lydia,
his
ex-girlfriend.

If this is your idea of the same thing you are even dumber than I
thought.

So indiscriminate killing isn't the same thing as what you're talking
about?

So tell me, exactly what indiscriminate killing are you talking about?

You painted yourself in a corner with this one.

Look, this childish manipulative ***** may work at school, but it
doesn't work here. If you think guns and gasoline are the same, that
is your problem.

When it comes to being able to be used for indiscriminate killing they
very
much are the same thing. Indeed gasoline is far easier to use for
indiscriminate killing than a handgun is.

When was the last time someone walked into a school with some gasoline
in their pocket and killed a bunch of kids?

So despite your assertions seems you're really only against some things
that
allow indiscriminate killing. Would that be something or only guns?

So let's make this easy for you. Show me where you have come out calling
for
the banning of anything that allows indiscriminate killing other than
guns.
So there you go, the field is wide open with the exception of guns, why
do I
feel you will have no more luck with this than with gasoline?

I oppose hand grenades, too.

In article <-dGdnZSXhOmlhWjcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

When it comes to being able to be used for indiscriminate killing they very
much are the same thing. Indeed gasoline is far easier to use for
indiscriminate killing than a handgun is.

When was the last time someone walked into a school with some gasoline
in their pocket and killed a bunch of kids?

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051249256191%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F3FEDA.ED8E4B1D@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:26 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes:

What part of he wants to ban ANY particular gun at all confuses
you?

The claim was that he doesn't want to ban all guns, not anything to
do
with banning any particular gun. Your 'response' was
non-responsive.

Pardon me, but Mike Moore _DID_ say that he prefers to have certain
items that he and the liberal front doesn't like BANNED!

Those certain items don't include all guns, so the response was
unresponsive.

Tell us all again, why ANY particular weapon should be banned.

Lack of need? Danger to society?

Define need?

YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.

Sure I do.

No, you don't.

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <41F3FEDA.ED8E4B1D@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:26 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes:

What part of he wants to ban ANY particular gun at all confuses you?

The claim was that he doesn't want to ban all guns, not anything to do
with banning any particular gun. Your 'response' was non-responsive.

Pardon me, but Mike Moore _DID_ say that he prefers to have certain
items that he and the liberal front doesn't like BANNED!

Those certain items don't include all guns, so the response was
unresponsive.

Tell us all again, why ANY particular weapon should be banned.

Lack of need? Danger to society?

Define need?

YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.

Sure I do.

And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?

Your wanting a weapons doesn't. Having one does.

*****. My owning or having a weapon presents absolutely no danger to
you *unless* you threaten me or mine with a violent act.

Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Lack of need? Danger to society?

Define need?

Required for life.

But YOU said that the governemnt defines what are needs are!
Remember?

YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.

Nope. Never said I did.

Then, you can't have one, because YOU said and agreed, that unless the
government says you are alowed to "need" something, then you can't have
it!

Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.

Prove that I was ever careless.

Every "potential weapon" I own is safe guarded better than ANYthing you
own, because I have superior tools that can drop ANY criminal, dead in
their tracks.
YOU can not even defend anything, as YOU are afraid of "POWER TOOLS!"
Even your own neighbors know that you are a cowardly ***** stain.

And no, you will never find them!
Know why?
Because I have the right to kill ***** stained morons like you when you
break into my home and even attempt to find my or my wifes goodies!

VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.

Like I said before, you mental midget.
"Need" has nothing to do with anything.

WE WANT a TV, the cars, the firearms of our choice, etc..

WE have the right to own and keep things that we want.