| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"William Flax" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2007 03:14:39 PM |
| Object: |
Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition have
ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed, subservient public;
one totally dependent upon Government, even for the most basic attributes of
daily living. And once again, we must express our disdain and disgust for
their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed many
of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional premises,
purposes and guarantees, have always assumed the principles involved in that
case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on which
they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
.
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 04:33:51 PM |
|
|
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in
news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for the
most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must express
our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed
many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional
premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed the principles
involved in that case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
God has a website?
Then what do we need Jerry Falwell for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Coffee in Madrid" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 04:45:16 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9917A88246766ta2eene2@216.196.97.131>,
Mitchell Holman <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in
news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for the
most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must express
our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed
many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional
premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed the principles
involved in that case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
God has a website?
Forget Xistianity... the internet is God now...
Kinda like the Beatles were more poplular than, you know who.
Coffee in BANG BANG China
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Notan notan@ddressthatcanbespammed" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 04:38:07 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in
news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for the
most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must express
our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed
many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional
premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed the principles
involved in that case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
God has a website?
Yes, but it's currently down, due to proxy problems.
Then what do we need Jerry Falwell for?
We don't!
--
Notan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 09:55:30 PM |
|
|
I agree, here's some quotes...
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny
gun to the bourgeoisie" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1917
"Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte,
sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre,
daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen
unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten."
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the
conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all
conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have
prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers
Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr.
Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
William Flax wrote:
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition have
ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed, subservient public;
one totally dependent upon Government, even for the most basic attributes of
daily living. And once again, we must express our disdain and disgust for
their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed many
of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional premises,
purposes and guarantees, have always assumed the principles involved in that
case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on which
they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 11:30:47 PM |
|
|
In article <CYVVh.99771$DE1.61360@pd7urf2no>, William Flax wrote:
a disarmed, subservient public;
You're subservient alright (even if you own 50+ guns), you just don't
realize it.
Just repeat this mantra: "9/11...keep us safe...9/11...keep us
safe...9/11...keep us safe..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baldoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 04:35:02 PM |
|
|
In news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net,
William Flax <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> typed:
| Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
| have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
| subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for
| the most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must
| express our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
|
| The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington;
| echoed many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our
| Constitutional premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed
| the principles involved in that case.
|
| For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
| despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
| which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the
| underlying arguments:
|
| http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
| [The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
|
| William Flax
| [Return Of The Gods Web Site]
Everyone should be allowed to bear firearms to defend themselves.
Especially in their own homes. If an intruder gets inside your home then
person should have a right to shoot him dead.
Tony Martin should never have been sent to gaol and his only mistake is that
he did not go outside and finish off that other Pikey scumbag who was lying
on the ground holding his leg. The law is an *****.
--
Count Baldoni
.
|
|
|
| User: "Coffee in Madrid" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 04:55:09 PM |
|
|
In article <4627ddba$0$9329$88260bb3@news.teranews.com>,
"Baldoni" <anthonyb@amalfi.org> wrote:
In news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net,
William Flax <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> typed:
| Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
| have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
| subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for
| the most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must
| express our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
|
| The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington;
| echoed many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our
| Constitutional premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed
| the principles involved in that case.
|
| For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
| despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
| which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the
| underlying arguments:
|
| http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
| [The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
|
| William Flax
| [Return Of The Gods Web Site]
Everyone should be allowed to bear firearms to defend themselves.
Especially in their own homes. If an intruder gets inside your home then
person should have a right to shoot him dead.
You would rather shoot first... ask questions later. Just like Dubya.
Right to bear arms also includes the criminal class... that is,
everybody, as you so see it. All the psychos - the depressed - the sick
with cancers - the criminals and the wannabe criminals.
All of them armed 2 da teeth with a mini-militia.
Just like Baghdad.
Coffee in a Heil of Gunfire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 09:00:24 AM |
|
|
On Apr 19, 3:55 pm, Coffee in Madrid <gde...@THISeastlink.ca> wrote:
In article <4627ddba$0$9329$88260...@news.teranews.com>,
"Baldoni" <antho...@amalfi.org> wrote:
Innews:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net,
William Flax <krtq7...@prodigy.net> typed:
| Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
| have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
| subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for
| the most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must
| express our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
|
| The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington;
| echoed many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our
| Constitutional premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed
| the principles involved in that case.
|
| For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
| despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
| which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the
| underlying arguments:
|
|http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
| [The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
|
| William Flax
| [Return Of The Gods Web Site]
Everyone should be allowed to bear firearms to defend themselves.
Especially in their own homes. If an intruder gets inside your home then
person should have a right to shoot him dead.
You would rather shoot first... ask questions later. Just like Dubya.
Right to bear arms also includes the criminal class... that is,
everybody, as you so see it. All the psychos - the depressed - the sick
with cancers - the criminals and the wannabe criminals.
All of them armed 2 da teeth with a mini-militia.
Here's a newsflash for you, Fool. The criminals are ALREADY armed to
the teeth. Even though the majority of criminals have lost the right
to own firearms, they have them. Making guns MORE illegal would only
give them one more law to laugh at. (You DO realize what the
definition of the word 'criminal' is, right?).
Why was it so easy for one deranged lunatic to kill 30+ people and
injure many more? What made it so easy for him to commit the nations
worst multiple murder? NOT because 'society' allowed him to have a
gun..but because laws and regulations offered him a killing field of
unarmed, defenseless victims.
Now, had the student body and faculty of VT had amongst its members
the average number of law abiding citizens who carry concealed (~5%),
there would have been scores of people nearby who could have defended
themselves and possibly stopped this maniac before he reached such a
high total.
But, you would rather them be poor defenseless sheeple because you
think that, while they may be dead, they were at least unarmed and
'safe' and protected from the 'evil' of owning a gun. And this makes
you feel righteous and 'enlightened'.
Basically, you're an idiot, but then you've already proved this.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Yes, you have the right to be offended. So fucking what?"-Solomon
Short.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Matthews" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 12:25:56 PM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
snip>
Here's a newsflash for you, Fool. The criminals are ALREADY armed to
the teeth. Even though the majority of criminals have lost the right
to own firearms, they have them. Making guns MORE illegal would only
give them one more law to laugh at. (You DO realize what the
definition of the word 'criminal' is, right?).
snip
And a flash for you. The criminals are armed mostly because the laws
are ineffective and the guns are obtained improperly and brought into
the area.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Coffee in Madrid" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 05:08:14 PM |
|
|
In article <462905b2$0$19451$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfmatthews@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Grendel wrote:
snip>
Here's a newsflash for you, Fool. The criminals are ALREADY armed to
the teeth. Even though the majority of criminals have lost the right
to own firearms, they have them. Making guns MORE illegal would only
give them one more law to laugh at. (You DO realize what the
definition of the word 'criminal' is, right?).
snip
And a flash for you. The criminals are armed mostly because the laws
are ineffective and the guns are obtained improperly and brought into
the area.
Frank is being 'frank', but Frank... don't ya think the availability of
the nice little handgun Cho chose to buy on Friday the 13th, is due to
the widespread nature of American gun laws?
With drugs its: demand creates supply.
With guns its: supply creates demand.
Coffee in Bam Bam, Iran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Matthews" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
21 Apr 2007 11:13:21 AM |
|
|
Coffee in Madrid wrote:
In article <462905b2$0$19451$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfmatthews@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Grendel wrote:
snip>
Here's a newsflash for you, Fool. The criminals are ALREADY armed to
the teeth. Even though the majority of criminals have lost the right
to own firearms, they have them. Making guns MORE illegal would only
give them one more law to laugh at. (You DO realize what the
definition of the word 'criminal' is, right?).
snip
And a flash for you. The criminals are armed mostly because the laws
are ineffective and the guns are obtained improperly and brought into
the area.
Frank is being 'frank', but Frank... don't ya think the availability of
the nice little handgun Cho chose to buy on Friday the 13th, is due to
the widespread nature of American gun laws?
With drugs its: demand creates supply.
With guns its: supply creates demand.
Coffee in Bam Bam, Iran
Not really. It is a complicated situation. The 15 capacity gun that
he used would not have been available 6 or 7 years ago. The
availability of the high capacity gun was the result of a clear decision
by the US administration in 2002. Supply is partially governed by the
types of weapons that are permitted. It is also related to the multiple
jurisdictions involved. The ineffectiveness of the NYC laws is greatly
the result of severely less strict rules in areas quite close to the cities.
Gun laws are also limited by the willingness of the authorities to
enforce the laws. Mexico is a good example of a country with strict gun
laws that are rarely enforced on locals with good connections.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 11:48:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 20, 7:55 am, Coffee in Madrid <gde...@THISeastlink.ca> wrote:
In article <4627ddba$0$9329$88260...@news.teranews.com>,
"Baldoni" <antho...@amalfi.org> wrote:
Innews:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net,
William Flax <krtq7...@prodigy.net> typed:
| Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
| have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
| subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for
| the most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must
| express our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
|
| The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington;
| echoed many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our
| Constitutional premises, purposes and guarantees, have always assumed
| the principles involved in that case.
|
| For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
| despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
| which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the
| underlying arguments:
|
|http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
| [The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
|
| William Flax
| [Return Of The Gods Web Site]
Everyone should be allowed to bear firearms to defend themselves.
Especially in their own homes. If an intruder gets inside your home then
person should have a right to shoot him dead.
You would rather shoot first... ask questions later. Just like Dubya.
When someone is shooting everybody he can see there aren't many
questions that need to be asked.
Right to bear arms also includes the criminal class... that is,
everybody, as you so see it. All the psychos - the depressed - the sick
with cancers - the criminals and the wannabe criminals.
And how many of them attack armed victims?
All of them armed 2 da teeth with a mini-militia.
Just like Baghdad.
Badhdad was relatively peaceful before the intervention of the
State. Blaming Baghdad violence on the right to keep and bear
arms by the citizenry is like blaming the Ukranian famine on
anarchism.
Coffee in a Heil of Gunfire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 08:07:41 AM |
|
|
Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1177044479.991140.17720
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 20, 7:55 am, Coffee in Madrid <gde...@THISeastlink.ca> wrote:
In article <4627ddba$0$9329$88260...@news.teranews.com>,
"Baldoni" <antho...@amalfi.org> wrote:
Innews:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net,
William Flax <krtq7...@prodigy.net> typed:
| Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
| have ceased upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed,
| subservient public; one totally dependent upon Government, even for
| the most basic attributes of daily living. And once again, we must
| express our disdain and disgust for their efforts.
|
| The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington;
| echoed many of the others of the Founding Fathers. Our
| Constitutional premises, purposes and guarantees, have always
assumed
| the principles involved in that case.
|
| For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do
not
| despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities
on
| which they have always depended, we offer this summary of the
| underlying arguments:
|
|http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
| [The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
|
| William Flax
| [Return Of The Gods Web Site]
Everyone should be allowed to bear firearms to defend themselves.
Especially in their own homes. If an intruder gets inside your home
then
person should have a right to shoot him dead.
You would rather shoot first... ask questions later. Just like Dubya.
When someone is shooting everybody he can see there aren't many
questions that need to be asked.
Right to bear arms also includes the criminal class... that is,
everybody, as you so see it. All the psychos - the depressed - the sick
with cancers - the criminals and the wannabe criminals.
And how many of them attack armed victims?
Why do police wear bullet proof vests?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Flax" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 03:29:10 PM |
|
|
Sorry about the typos. The corrected text is below!!
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition have
seized upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed, subservient
public;
one totally dependent upon Government, even for the most basic attributes
of
daily living. And once again, we must express our disdain and disgust for
their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed by
many
of the other Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional premises, purposes and
guarantees,
have always assumed the principles involved in that case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
which
they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
.
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
19 Apr 2007 11:04:49 PM |
|
|
A deranged person was sold guns and killed innocent people.
You better start thinking up answers because they're going to be alot of
questions.
And is this really what Washington had in mind?
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:qiQVh.1270$H_.1167@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Sorry about the typos. The corrected text is below!!
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
have
seized upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed, subservient
public;
one totally dependent upon Government, even for the most basic
attributes
of
daily living. And once again, we must express our disdain and disgust
for
their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed
by
many
of the other Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional premises, purposes
and
guarantees,
have always assumed the principles involved in that case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
which
they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 12:10:18 AM |
|
|
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Dan
robw wrote:
A deranged person was sold guns and killed innocent people.
You better start thinking up answers because they're going to be alot of
questions.
And is this really what Washington had in mind?
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:qiQVh.1270$H_.1167@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Sorry about the typos. The corrected text is below!!
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:P4QVh.1263$H_.70@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Once again, the usual posters against American Liberty and tradition
have
seized upon a tragedy to peddle the case for a disarmed, subservient
public;
one totally dependent upon Government, even for the most basic
attributes
of
daily living. And once again, we must express our disdain and disgust
for
their efforts.
The case for a well armed public was made by George Washington; echoed
by
many
of the other Founding Fathers. Our Constitutional premises, purposes
and
guarantees,
have always assumed the principles involved in that case.
For those who are not intimidated by the anti-gun hysteria; who do not
despair of retaining our basic liberties, and the responsibilities on
which
they have always depended, we offer this summary of the underlying
arguments:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
[The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms]
William Flax
[Return Of The Gods Web Site]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Matthews" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 12:21:02 PM |
|
|
He was, however, a legal resident. As such, with the exception of a few
government jobs, he has the same rights that you do.
With regard to the clinical situation he was evaluated for release and
the US has refused to maintain sufficient hospital space for those who
are deranged and have limited the time they can be held.
Dan wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Dan
robw wrote:
A deranged person was sold guns and killed innocent people.
You better start thinking up answers because they're going to be alot of
questions.
And is this really what Washington had in mind?
snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 12:33:32 AM |
|
|
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
"I think I mite like to move to Russia, where they take their tyranny
straight up, undiluted with the waters of hypocrisy." A. Lincoln.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Matthews" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 12:23:11 PM |
|
|
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
"I think I mite like to move to Russia, where they take their tyranny
straight up, undiluted with the waters of hypocrisy." A. Lincoln.
A fun quote from the president who imprisoned citizens without review
and whose government arrested candidates who they felt might threatened
the support for a war.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! - I forgot |
20 Apr 2007 10:24:59 AM |
|
|
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
"I think I mite like to move to Russia, where they take their tyranny
straight up, undiluted with the waters of hypocrisy." A. Lincoln.
So, please explain to me why countries with a higher firearms ownership
(the highest per capita is Switzerland, then Isreal) have a lower murder
rate. Continue with why some countries (Russia, Brazil) have tighter gun
control, but a higher murder rate. Finally, explain to me why a city
(Washington DC) that completely banned guns has been the murder capital
(or #2) for 20 years. Also, read this....
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 09:05:24 AM |
|
|
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
No, Governments fear/respect an armed citizenry. That's why the Soviets
could do what they wanted. That's why Hitler went through neutral
Belgium and not through neutral Switzerland, who are the most heavily
armed country (per capita) in the world, when he invaded France.
"I think I mite like to move to Russia, where they take their tyranny
straight up, undiluted with the waters of hypocrisy." A. Lincoln.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 10:40:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:05:24 GMT, Dan <dan@none.ca> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
No, Governments fear/respect an armed citizenry. That's why the Soviets
could do what they wanted. That's why Hitler went through neutral
Belgium and not through neutral Switzerland, who are the most heavily
armed country (per capita) in the world, when he invaded France.
Do you really feel that a bunch of hunting rifles and 9mm pistols are
going to deter tanks and planes? That's patently silly. As for your
assertion about Switzerland - Hitler went thru Belgium because it's
flat, closer, and easier for tanks. PS - Hitler also went directly
across the French border bypassing the Maginot Line. You might want to
look at a map - you'd discover that only an idiot would attack France
thru Switzerland.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
20 Apr 2007 02:23:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:05:24 GMT, Dan <dan@none.ca> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
No, Governments fear/respect an armed citizenry. That's why the Soviets
could do what they wanted. That's why Hitler went through neutral
Belgium and not through neutral Switzerland, who are the most heavily
armed country (per capita) in the world, when he invaded France.
Do you really feel that a bunch of hunting rifles and 9mm pistols are
going to deter tanks and planes? That's patently silly.
Really? Look how well things are going for the Yanks in Iraq with all
their aircraft and armour
As for your
assertion about Switzerland - Hitler went thru Belgium because it's
flat, closer, and easier for tanks. PS - Hitler also went directly
across the French border bypassing the Maginot Line. You might want to
look at a map - you'd discover that only an idiot would attack France
thru Switzerland.
WB Yeats
I agree. I personally would have went through Belgium, because of the
flatness of the terrain. Hitler could have invaded Switzerland either
way, like he did for most of Europe. Are you saying an armed Switzerland
wasn't a deterrent? Every male is Swit. (to a certain age)is a soldier
and keeps his arms and ammunition at home. Give this a read, it's
interesting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Forgot to add.... |
20 Apr 2007 02:26:26 PM |
|
|
If you read anything about the Swiss army on the wiki, scroll to the
bottom in the "Discussion" area...
Dan
Dan wrote:
wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:05:24 GMT, Dan <dan@none.ca> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
No, Governments fear/respect an armed citizenry. That's why the
Soviets could do what they wanted. That's why Hitler went through
neutral Belgium and not through neutral Switzerland, who are the most
heavily armed country (per capita) in the world, when he invaded France.
Do you really feel that a bunch of hunting rifles and 9mm pistols are
going to deter tanks and planes? That's patently silly.
Really? Look how well things are going for the Yanks in Iraq with all
their aircraft and armour
As for your
assertion about Switzerland - Hitler went thru Belgium because it's
flat, closer, and easier for tanks. PS - Hitler also went directly
across the French border bypassing the Maginot Line. You might want to
look at a map - you'd discover that only an idiot would attack France
thru Switzerland.
WB Yeats
I agree. I personally would have went through Belgium, because of the
flatness of the terrain. Hitler could have invaded Switzerland either
way, like he did for most of Europe. Are you saying an armed Switzerland
wasn't a deterrent? Every male is Swit. (to a certain age)is a soldier
and keeps his arms and ammunition at home. Give this a read, it's
interesting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria! |
21 Apr 2007 10:02:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:23:40 GMT, Dan <dan@none.ca> wrote:
wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:05:24 GMT, Dan <dan@none.ca> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Dan <d...@none.ca> wrote:
I agree with you. Why is the system set up for a clinically verified
deranged person, who was not a citizen, allowed to purchase weapons?
Because the weapons that really count, the means of manipulating the
minds of the sheeple, are still in the hands of big government and
media.
The 2nd ammendment gun nuts are naieve enough to think that their gun
ownership is a deterrent to tyranny, when in fact it is just a crumb
swept off the table where the real agendas are being set.
No, Governments fear/respect an armed citizenry. That's why the Soviets
could do what they wanted. That's why Hitler went through neutral
Belgium and not through neutral Switzerland, who are the most heavily
armed country (per capita) in the world, when he invaded France.
Do you really feel that a bunch of hunting rifles and 9mm pistols are
going to deter tanks and planes? That's patently silly.
Really? Look how well things are going for the Yanks in Iraq with all
their aircraft and armour
Do you really think that the majority of US citizens are going to
jopin in some wacko revolution? Your reference to Iraq bears no
relationship to your earlier theorem - it's a different society than
that found in the West.
As for your
assertion about Switzerland - Hitler went thru Belgium because it's
flat, closer, and easier for tanks. PS - Hitler also went directly
across the French border bypassing the Maginot Line. You might want to
look at a map - you'd discover that only an idiot would attack France
thru Switzerland.
WB Yeats
I agree. I personally would have went through Belgium, because of the
flatness of the terrain. Hitler could have invaded Switzerland either
way, like he did for most of Europe. Are you saying an armed Switzerland
wasn't a deterrent? Every male is Swit. (to a certain age)is a soldier
and keeps his arms and ammunition at home. Give this a read, it's
interesting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Dan
I know all about the Swiss, their military, and their history. That
said, Hitler could have taken Switzerland but it wasn't the Swiss guns
that deterred him. It was the Alps and the fact that the Swiss were
more than willing to bank the Nzais ill-gotten gains. It was in the
Nazis personal interest to keep Switzerland neutral and functioning.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
