| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 09:31:14 AM |
|
|
In article <J6qdnQq6rd6VZWHcRVn-ig@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jdege@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrncvpsjd.pk9.jdege@jdege.visi.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:29:15 -0500, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Assault/Battery
In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries
to
or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to
put
another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious
or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause
severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly
weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as
"assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching
as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html
I was thinking historically. Seems the boundaries have faded into one
term.
In my state, we have assault in the 1st degree, in the 2nd degree, etc.
Assault in the first degree involves causing serious injury, in the fifth
degree involves causing a person to believe you intend to inflicting
serious injury.
(The other degrees involve specific circumstances - assaulting a police
officer, etc.)
Same here in Delaware, and recently they added Correctional Officers because
we had a Correctional Officer assaulted in a mall parking lot by an
ex-inmate
who knew him. I believe he got seven years in prison for that.
It's always about you, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 09:31:15 AM |
|
|
In article <p5SdnYfgSPDvcGHcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use of
a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
In tort, Battery occurs when the defendant¹s acts intentionally cause
harmful or offensive contact with the victim¹s person. Accidental
contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict
liability. Assault occurs when the defendant's acts intentionally
cause the victim's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or
offensive contact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 09:45:17 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:300120050731153051%spam@aol.com...
In article <p5SdnYfgSPDvcGHcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use
of
a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
In tort, Battery occurs when the defendant¹s acts intentionally cause
harmful or offensive contact with the victim¹s person. Accidental
contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict
liability. Assault occurs when the defendant's acts intentionally
cause the victim's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or
offensive contact.
You are a bit out of date.
Assault/Battery
In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to
or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put
another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious
or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause
severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly
weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as
"assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching
as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html
So when exactly when and where did you graduate from law school?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 08:30:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:57:32 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that
....you can't support what you said.
Yes, I know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 01:18:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:49:18 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should
be locked up and evaluated, no where in the story
presented does it say that she admitted firing _at_
those city workers.
Just going outside and showing them the gun, under
these circumstances, is a felony.
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful
possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using
force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate
the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
~ (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if
the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the
dispossession and:
~ ~ (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
~ ~ (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in
using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force
is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson,
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or
recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a
substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 12:15:34 PM |
|
|
In article <41FA7F0A.30F86D43@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
The trespassers CLAIM she shot at them.
She _admits_ she fired at them. From the last sentence above the cite "Lomax
said she fired two or three shots and called police to report the
trespassing."
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should be locked up and
evaluated, no where in the story presented does it say that she admitted
firing _at_ those city workers.
The WORKERS said that she did.
Just wanted to clear that up.
And you get WHAT from this?
The story just said that she fired off some rounds. _She_ doesn't say
where.
And for that alone, she sounds to me like a mental case.
But the sadder part is, that stories writer and said papers editor had
to first mention her political "activism" before mentioning her
stupidity when she was not under threat of bodily harm or damage to her
property.
Yeah - we need to keep that a secret so people like you can say things
like, "It doesn't say she was a Republican! Where does it say she is a
Republican?"
That crazy ***** DOES belong in jail for years, if indeed the rest of
that story is even remotely true.
The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail! Next!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 01:20:30 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA7F0A.30F86D43@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
The trespassers CLAIM she shot at them.
She _admits_ she fired at them. From the last sentence above the cite "Lomax
said she fired two or three shots and called police to report the
trespassing."
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should be locked up and
evaluated, no where in the story presented does it say that she admitted
firing _at_ those city workers.
The WORKERS said that she did.
Just wanted to clear that up.
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves to placed in a
secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
But the sadder part is, that stories writer and said papers editor had
to first mention her political "activism" before mentioning her
stupidity when she was not under threat of bodily harm or damage to her
property.
Yeah - we need to keep that a secret so people like you can say things
like, "It doesn't say she was a Republican! Where does it say she is a
Republican?"
What secret?
And how stump stupid are you?
Didn't you even read or comprehend the very first line of the story,
you moron, let alone the title?
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
Read it again, and this time, wash the thumb you put in yer mouth after
you yank it oughta yer *****.
That ***** is crazy!
That makes her a Liberal in disguise!
That crazy ***** DOES belong in jail for years, if indeed the rest of
that story is even remotely true.
The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail! Next!"
What are you saying?
That she doesn't belong in jail for going ballistic?
Typical Liberal, you are!
That crazed woman opened fire with no remorse or care as to where those
spent slugs were to land.
No responsible person EVER fires "warning shots", espesially when city
workers are cutting limbs off, of, and around trees that are surrounding
power and cable lines that support ones own or other homes.
That woman needs to be placed in a secured cubical.
YOU say that she should not!
"The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"--David W. Barnes--
Obviously "David W. Barnes" wants crazed people "forgiven" and let
loose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 03:29:10 PM |
|
|
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves
to placed in a secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
Correct. That position is quite reasonable.
But it's also reasonable that the fact that she's a long-time
Republican activist would come into play.
'Tis the nature of news.
It dressing things up, makes the story more interesting.
I mean, how many men are bad husbands and cheat
on their wives? Millions? Tens of millions at one
time or another?
It turns out that Bill Clinton is a bad husband -- though
we all already knew that for years -- and they got
months & months of news coverage out of it.
Not a peep about Joe Schmoes affair... months & months
over Clinton's hummer from a somewhat unattractive
intern.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 05:46:54 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves
to placed in a secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
Correct. That position is quite reasonable.
But it's also reasonable that the fact that she's a long-time
Republican activist would come into play.
Why?
What does that insane persons political affiliation have to do with
anything?
We already have mutualy agreed that she is nutz!
Doesn't that mean that she's really a liberal pretending that she was a
republican?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 01:48:36 PM |
|
|
In article <41FA907E.B78C5D08@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA7F0A.30F86D43@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
The trespassers CLAIM she shot at them.
She _admits_ she fired at them. From the last sentence above the cite
"Lomax
said she fired two or three shots and called police to report the
trespassing."
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should be locked up and
evaluated, no where in the story presented does it say that she admitted
firing _at_ those city workers.
The WORKERS said that she did.
Just wanted to clear that up.
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves to placed in a
secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
That you are struggling.
But the sadder part is, that stories writer and said papers editor had
to first mention her political "activism" before mentioning her
stupidity when she was not under threat of bodily harm or damage to her
property.
Yeah - we need to keep that a secret so people like you can say things
like, "It doesn't say she was a Republican! Where does it say she is a
Republican?"
What secret?
That she was a Republican. Keep up.
That crazy ***** DOES belong in jail for years, if indeed the rest of
that story is even remotely true.
The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail! Next!"
What are you saying?
That she doesn't belong in jail for going ballistic?
What are you saying? She is mentally ill so we should treat her like a
criminal?
Typical Liberal, you are!
Thank you.
No responsible person EVER fires "warning shots", espesially when city
workers are cutting limbs off, of, and around trees that are surrounding
power and cable lines that support ones own or other homes.
That woman needs to be placed in a secured cubical.
It would crowd you.
YOU say that she should not!
You said JAIL.
"The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"--David W. Barnes--
Obviously "David W. Barnes" wants crazed people "forgiven" and let
loose.
When people feel the need to distort what is said, it is because the
truth couldn't be refuted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 03:49:34 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA907E.B78C5D08@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA7F0A.30F86D43@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
The trespassers CLAIM she shot at them.
She _admits_ she fired at them. From the last sentence above the cite
"Lomax
said she fired two or three shots and called police to report the
trespassing."
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should be locked up and
evaluated, no where in the story presented does it say that she admitted
firing _at_ those city workers.
The WORKERS said that she did.
Just wanted to clear that up.
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves to placed in a
secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
That you are struggling.
Only to keep from laughing out loud at the likes of you that wish to
keep that crazed ***** from being set free!
But the sadder part is, that stories writer and said papers editor had
to first mention her political "activism" before mentioning her
stupidity when she was not under threat of bodily harm or damage to her
property.
Yeah - we need to keep that a secret so people like you can say things
like, "It doesn't say she was a Republican! Where does it say she is a
Republican?"
What secret?
That she was a Republican. Keep up.
Hardly a secret, you dope!
Also, hardly relevent!
After all, she was insane, so that makes her a stump stupid liberal like
you!
That crazy ***** DOES belong in jail for years, if indeed the rest of
that story is even remotely true.
The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail! Next!"
What are you saying?
That she doesn't belong in jail for going ballistic?
What are you saying? She is mentally ill so we should treat her like a
criminal?
Of course, you retard!
After all, she is nutz, and she also committed a serious crime, and
used a firearm in the commission of it!
Why do you liberals want to set that old ***** free?
If the story is true, she should be locked up and studied for the rest
of her life.
Why do you, as the story is told, want that a crazed ol biddy let
loose?
Typical Liberal, you are!
Thank you.
No! Thank YOU for proving my point!
YOU approve of letting idiots loose, instead of keeping the dangerous
incarcerated!
No responsible person EVER fires "warning shots", espesially when city
workers are cutting limbs off, of, and around trees that are surrounding
power and cable lines that support ones own or other homes.
That woman needs to be placed in a secured cubical.
It would crowd you.
What?
My Goodness!
YOU just admitted that you approve that the mentally ill should let
loose!
YOU say that she should not!
You said JAIL.
Or prison.
What ever is more secure.
Your problem with keeping the morons locked up?
Do you feel sorrow for her?
"The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"--David W. Barnes--
Obviously "David W. Barnes" wants crazed people "forgiven" and let
loose.
When people feel the need to distort what is said, it is because the
truth couldn't be refuted.
What truth is being distorted?
I'm all for personal ownership of firearms.
But, I am against the misuse of them by idiots like her or you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 04:05:08 PM |
|
|
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote in message
news:41FAB36E.A0441BB7@BCComics.net...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA907E.B78C5D08@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA7F0A.30F86D43@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
The trespassers CLAIM she shot at them.
She _admits_ she fired at them. From the last sentence above the
cite
"Lomax
said she fired two or three shots and called police to report the
trespassing."
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should be locked up
and
evaluated, no where in the story presented does it say that she
admitted
firing _at_ those city workers.
The WORKERS said that she did.
Just wanted to clear that up.
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves to placed in a
secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
That you are struggling.
Only to keep from laughing out loud at the likes of you that wish to
keep that crazed ***** from being set free!
did you see where he admitted he is a coward and ignorant?
But the sadder part is, that stories writer and said papers editor
had
to first mention her political "activism" before mentioning her
stupidity when she was not under threat of bodily harm or damage to
her
property.
Yeah - we need to keep that a secret so people like you can say
things
like, "It doesn't say she was a Republican! Where does it say she is
a
Republican?"
What secret?
That she was a Republican. Keep up.
Hardly a secret, you dope!
Also, hardly relevent!
After all, she was insane, so that makes her a stump stupid liberal like
you!
You most likely realize that Barnes is a bigot, towards republicans and
anyone who believes in God.
There are hundreds of post that barnes has made that will support my
statement.
That crazy ***** DOES belong in jail for years, if indeed the rest
of
that story is even remotely true.
The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"
What are you saying?
That she doesn't belong in jail for going ballistic?
What are you saying? She is mentally ill so we should treat her like a
criminal?
Of course, you retard!
After all, she is nutz, and she also committed a serious crime, and
used a firearm in the commission of it!
Why do you liberals want to set that old ***** free?
If the story is true, she should be locked up and studied for the rest
of her life.
Why do you, as the story is told, want that a crazed ol biddy let
loose?
Typical Liberal, you are!
Thank you.
No! Thank YOU for proving my point!
YOU approve of letting idiots loose, instead of keeping the dangerous
incarcerated!
No responsible person EVER fires "warning shots", espesially when city
workers are cutting limbs off, of, and around trees that are
surrounding
power and cable lines that support ones own or other homes.
That woman needs to be placed in a secured cubical.
It would crowd you.
What?
My Goodness!
YOU just admitted that you approve that the mentally ill should let
loose!
YOU say that she should not!
You said JAIL.
Or prison.
What ever is more secure.
The difference is..Jail holds people for one year or less...usually
pre-trial, or those sentenced to less than a year.
Prison is for people who have been sentenced longer than 1 year.
Delaware doesn't have any jails, so in our prison we have to have a seperate
area for pre-trial detainees
Your problem with keeping the morons locked up?
Do you feel sorrow for her?
"The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"--David W. Barnes--
Obviously "David W. Barnes" wants crazed people "forgiven" and let
loose.
When people feel the need to distort what is said, it is because the
truth couldn't be refuted.
What truth is being distorted?
I'm all for personal ownership of firearms.
But, I am against the misuse of them by idiots like her or you.
Excellent attitude, I agree.
It is like the old saying, Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
A gun, laying on a table is not dangerous. If the person who owns it,
chooses to make it dangerous..then the gun becomes a tool used to inflict
harm or take a life.
Taking away guns will not work.
People who want to take away the right for citizens to have arms, show that
they are cowards.
Then again, Barnes already admitted he is a coward.
From: "David W. Barnes" <s...@aol.com>
Message-ID: <250120050815024643%spam@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:15:02 -0800
Well, for me, I don't use a killfile, I just ignore posts that are
meaningless.
David Barnes said
I don't either - I find it kind of cowardly and ignorant. I can handle
these idiots just fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes said above, killfiling people is cowardly and ignorant...lets see
what Barnes said Friday, Nov. 15, 2002....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Barnes <dbar...@barnsco.com>
Message-ID: <141120022050126465%dbar...@barnsco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 04:49:40 GMT
"Pat, excuse me for cutting in but I "kill filed" him long ago and I
rarely see his stuff."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 07:08:07 PM |
|
|
In article <C8SdnYN_5LCtK2fcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote in message
news:41FAB36E.A0441BB7@BCComics.net...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA907E.B78C5D08@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA7F0A.30F86D43@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
The trespassers CLAIM she shot at them.
She _admits_ she fired at them. From the last sentence above the
cite
"Lomax
said she fired two or three shots and called police to report the
trespassing."
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should be locked up
and
evaluated, no where in the story presented does it say that she
admitted
firing _at_ those city workers.
The WORKERS said that she did.
Just wanted to clear that up.
And you get WHAT from this?
That indeed she was mad in the head, and she deserves to placed in a
secured placed, like I said.
What did YOU get from it?
That you are struggling.
Only to keep from laughing out loud at the likes of you that wish to
keep that crazed ***** from being set free!
did you see where he admitted he is a coward and ignorant?
Polly want a cracker?
But the sadder part is, that stories writer and said papers editor
had
to first mention her political "activism" before mentioning her
stupidity when she was not under threat of bodily harm or damage to
her
property.
Yeah - we need to keep that a secret so people like you can say
things
like, "It doesn't say she was a Republican! Where does it say she is
a
Republican?"
What secret?
That she was a Republican. Keep up.
Hardly a secret, you dope!
Also, hardly relevent!
After all, she was insane, so that makes her a stump stupid liberal like
you!
You most likely realize that Barnes is a bigot, towards republicans and
anyone who believes in God.
Osprey thinks that if you don't agree with him, you are a "bigot."
There are hundreds of post that barnes has made that will support my
statement.
And he has every one of these supposed posts. He is obsessed with me.
He even uses phrases I use.
That crazy ***** DOES belong in jail for years, if indeed the rest
of
that story is even remotely true.
The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"
What are you saying?
That she doesn't belong in jail for going ballistic?
What are you saying? She is mentally ill so we should treat her like a
criminal?
Of course, you retard!
After all, she is nutz, and she also committed a serious crime, and
used a firearm in the commission of it!
Why do you liberals want to set that old ***** free?
If the story is true, she should be locked up and studied for the rest
of her life.
Why do you, as the story is told, want that a crazed ol biddy let
loose?
Typical Liberal, you are!
Thank you.
No! Thank YOU for proving my point!
YOU approve of letting idiots loose, instead of keeping the dangerous
incarcerated!
No responsible person EVER fires "warning shots", espesially when city
workers are cutting limbs off, of, and around trees that are
surrounding
power and cable lines that support ones own or other homes.
That woman needs to be placed in a secured cubical.
It would crowd you.
What?
My Goodness!
YOU just admitted that you approve that the mentally ill should let
loose!
YOU say that she should not!
You said JAIL.
Or prison.
What ever is more secure.
The difference is..Jail holds people for one year or less...usually
pre-trial, or those sentenced to less than a year.
Prison is for people who have been sentenced longer than 1 year.
Gee - thanks Mr. Science. You really want people to believe you know
SOMETHING, ANYTHING that others don't know, right?
Delaware doesn't have any jails, so in our prison we have to have a seperate
area for pre-trial detainees
Idiot
Your problem with keeping the morons locked up?
Do you feel sorrow for her?
"The simple minded answer from the Right - "throw them in jail!
Next!"--David W. Barnes--
Obviously "David W. Barnes" wants crazed people "forgiven" and let
loose.
When people feel the need to distort what is said, it is because the
truth couldn't be refuted.
What truth is being distorted?
I'm all for personal ownership of firearms.
But, I am against the misuse of them by idiots like her or you.
Excellent attitude, I agree.
It is like the old saying, Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Rocket launchers don't kill people, people kill people.
Hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people.
Machine guns don't kill people, people kill people.
A gun, laying on a table is not dangerous. If the person who owns it,
chooses to make it dangerous..then the gun becomes a tool used to inflict
harm or take a life.
So everything should be legal.
Heroin doesn't kill people, people who use heroin kill themselves.
Taking away guns will not work.
People who want to take away the right for citizens to have arms, show that
they are cowards.
How so?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 01:41:10 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:dIWdnXMGrPlPWWTcRVn-
3A@comcast.com:
Associated Press
WACO - A longtime Republican Party activist has
been indicted on charges of shooting at workers
cutting down trees at her Woodway home.
Carolyn Payne Lomax, 63, was indicted Wednesday
on two counts of aggravated assault in a 2004
incident when Asplundh Co. workers were
trimming trees around utility lines for utility
company Oncor.
[---snip---]
This time, Lomax said, the workers appeared to be
mocking her in Spanish. After repeated pleas, she
said, she went inside and grabbed a .22-caliber
pistol from a desk drawer.
"I went back out in the yard and I said, 'I have a gun.
Get off of my property. You're trespassing,'" Lomax
said. "They laughed, and they continued to cut."
Lomax said she fired two or three shots and called
police to report the trespassing.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
Looking at the story at face value, I say she was within her rights to tell
them to get off her property. Though she shouldn't have fired the gun. Her
life wasn't being threatened.
Why were they cutting down her trees?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 01:10:23 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Associated Press
WACO - A longtime Republican Party activist has
been indicted on charges of shooting at workers
cutting down trees at her Woodway home.
Carolyn Payne Lomax, 63, was indicted Wednesday
on two counts of aggravated assault in a 2004
incident when Asplundh Co. workers were
trimming trees around utility lines for utility
company Oncor.
[---snip---]
This time, Lomax said, the workers appeared to be
mocking her in Spanish. After repeated pleas, she
said, she went inside and grabbed a .22-caliber
pistol from a desk drawer.
"I went back out in the yard and I said, 'I have a gun.
Get off of my property. You're trespassing,'" Lomax
said. "They laughed, and they continued to cut."
Lomax said she fired two or three shots and called
police to report the trespassing.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
Can't say I blame her for getting upset. I had some mature pines in my
yard that my neighbor had a worker literally shave up one side of the
trunk - and the pines were ten feet inside the property line. It ruined
the look of the trees. I sued the neighbor - and won. But the trees
were still ruined.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 08:14:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:59:08 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Associated Press
WACO - A longtime Republican Party activist has
been indicted on charges of shooting at workers
cutting down trees at her Woodway home.
Carolyn Payne Lomax, 63, was indicted Wednesday
on two counts of aggravated assault in a 2004
incident when Asplundh Co. workers were
trimming trees around utility lines for utility
company Oncor.
[---snip---]
This time, Lomax said, the workers appeared to be
mocking her in Spanish. After repeated pleas, she
said, she went inside and grabbed a .22-caliber
pistol from a desk drawer.
"I went back out in the yard and I said, 'I have a gun.
Get off of my property. You're trespassing,'" Lomax
said. "They laughed, and they continued to cut."
Lomax said she fired two or three shots and called
police to report the trespassing.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3011938
They didn't attack her and brutally murder her with their tree-cutting
implements, did they? Ha! Another successful DGU.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FerdinandAkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 10:58:22 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:35tlmjF4qqk29U1@individual.net...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Tell me about it, it is too cold here in Delaware. I always go out about 15
minutes prior, start up my truck, and let it warm up.
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine
is stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake
effectively set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect
the police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 08:10:50 AM |
|
|
"FerdinandAkin" <FerdinandAkin@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f6qdnbK6GMGDNmTcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:35tlmjF4qqk29U1@individual.net...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Tell me about it, it is too cold here in Delaware. I always go out about
15 minutes prior, start up my truck, and let it warm up.
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in charge
of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine is
stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake effectively
set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect the
police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
Well, here in Delaware at this time the windchill is below 0 degrees. I
live out in the country and I have a lot of land, I have a very well trained
German Sheppard...so screw it..I am letting it warm up...lol
I think there is a law in Delaware against it, I don't know. I know that
when I was in the Air Force, on Dover A.F.B., they had a regulation against
you warming up your car and not being in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 12:10:38 PM |
|
|
In article <8PmdnaXpy5WC2mfcRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"FerdinandAkin" <FerdinandAkin@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f6qdnbK6GMGDNmTcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:35tlmjF4qqk29U1@individual.net...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Tell me about it, it is too cold here in Delaware. I always go out about
15 minutes prior, start up my truck, and let it warm up.
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in charge
of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine is
stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake effectively
set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect the
police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
Well, here in Delaware at this time the windchill is below 0 degrees. I
live out in the country and I have a lot of land, I have a very well trained
German Sheppard...so screw it..I am letting it warm up...lol
I think there is a law in Delaware against it, I don't know. I know that
when I was in the Air Force, on Dover A.F.B., they had a regulation against
you warming up your car and not being in it.
And as I have said, many states have these laws. But like the whole
2nd Amendment issue, these boobs think just claiming it isn't true
makes it untrue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 06:02:02 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010388924%spam@aol.com...
In article <8PmdnaXpy5WC2mfcRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"FerdinandAkin" <FerdinandAkin@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f6qdnbK6GMGDNmTcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:35tlmjF4qqk29U1@individual.net...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No.
489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid *****
about
how cold the car is.
Tell me about it, it is too cold here in Delaware. I always go out
about
15 minutes prior, start up my truck, and let it warm up.
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as
provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in
charge
of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine is
stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake
effectively
set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise
in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do
not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect
the
police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
Well, here in Delaware at this time the windchill is below 0 degrees. I
live out in the country and I have a lot of land, I have a very well
trained
German Sheppard...so screw it..I am letting it warm up...lol
I think there is a law in Delaware against it, I don't know. I know that
when I was in the Air Force, on Dover A.F.B., they had a regulation
against
you warming up your car and not being in it.
And as I have said, many states have these laws.
Wrong. That is NOT what you said.
You said "In many states it is illegal to leave the keys to your car in the
car."
Your attempt to revise your claim is noted. Is this a concession that you
can't support that assertion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:03:03 PM |
|
|
In article <f6qdnbK6GMGDNmTcRVn-sA@comcast.com>, FerdinandAkin
<FerdinandAkin@comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:35tlmjF4qqk29U1@individual.net...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car an | | |
