Restriction on Guns

[Pat]

I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
polarization.

As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
guns in that Walmart.

It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
"corporate".

Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
principles.

[Elmo]

Pat wrote:
> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
> polarization.
>
> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
> guns in that Walmart.
>
> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
> "corporate".
>
> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
> principles.
>
Because Wal-O-Caust never customizes anything they just use the same
sign for all the stores?

--
They're locking them up today they're throwing away the key
I wonder who it'll be tomorrow you or me.

[Pat]

On Jun 22, 7:52 am, Elmo <***@NoSpam.org> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
> > goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
> > polarization.
>
> > As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
> > thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
> > glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
> > buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
> > of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
> > problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
> > guns in that Walmart.
>
> > It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
> > "corporate".
>
> > Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
> > live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
> > from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
> > principles.
>
> Because Wal-O-Caust never customizes anything they just use the same
> sign for all the stores?
>
> --
> They're locking them up today they're throwing away the key
> I wonder who it'll be tomorrow you or me.


Yes, it is the same sign for all stores in NYS. It said so. But why
the restriction?

[Elmo]

Pat wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:52 am, Elmo <***@NoSpam.org> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>>> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
>>> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
>>> polarization.
>>> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
>>> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
>>> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
>>> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
>>> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
>>> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
>>> guns in that Walmart.
>>> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
>>> "corporate".
>>> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
>>> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
>>> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
>>> principles.
>> Because Wal-O-Caust never customizes anything they just use the same
>> sign for all the stores?
>>
>> --
>> They're locking them up today they're throwing away the key
>> I wonder who it'll be tomorrow you or me.
>
>
> Yes, it is the same sign for all stores in NYS. It said so. But why
> the restriction?
>
I was thinking of Wal-O-Caust in a coast-to-coast perspective. Same sign
wherever you go and same policy for _you_ wherever you go.

[Pat]

On Jun 22, 11:59 am, Elmo <***@NoSpam.org> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 7:52 am, Elmo <***@NoSpam.org> wrote:
> >> Pat wrote:
> >>> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
> >>> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
> >>> polarization.
> >>> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
> >>> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
> >>> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
> >>> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
> >>> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
> >>> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
> >>> guns in that Walmart.
> >>> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
> >>> "corporate".
> >>> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
> >>> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
> >>> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
> >>> principles.
> >> Because Wal-O-Caust never customizes anything they just use the same
> >> sign for all the stores?
>
> >> --
> >> They're locking them up today they're throwing away the key
> >> I wonder who it'll be tomorrow you or me.
>
> > Yes, it is the same sign for all stores in NYS. It said so. But why
> > the restriction?
>
> I was thinking of Wal-O-Caust in a coast-to-coast perspective. Same sign
> wherever you go and same policy for _you_ wherever you go.

No, the map was mostly red. Red was okay for gun sales. Blue was
bad. But on the red, NY was horizontal lines across it for shading.
When I looked at the legand, it shows the shading was for the state
that the sign was for. So it appears to be some sort of state-by-
state policy or regulation.

[John Gilmer]

> No, the map was mostly red. Red was okay for gun sales. Blue was
> bad. But on the red, NY was horizontal lines across it for shading.
> When I looked at the legand, it shows the shading was for the state
> that the sign was for. So it appears to be some sort of state-by-
> state policy or regulation.

I saw a sign in a Virginai WM that spelled out which residents of various
states could by guns. I don't remember the details. I suspect it's a
combination of agreements between/among the various states.

I can't imagine why someone from, say, Colorado would come to a Virginia WM
to buy a gun.
>

[Ann]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:30:01 +0000, Pat wrote:

> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
> polarization.
>
> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
> guns in that Walmart.
>
> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
> "corporate".
>
> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
> principles.

Google: walmart gun sales

A year+ ago Walmart announced they were dropping gun sales in approx 1/3
of their stores. They said the decision was based whether guns were the
best use of the sales space in individual stores. I don't expect them to
drop gun sales here anytime soon, but in the last store reconfiguration,
flat screen TVs were the winner.

[AL]

Ann wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:30:01 +0000, Pat wrote:
>
>
>>I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
>>goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
>>polarization.
>>
>>As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
>>thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
>>glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
>>buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
>>of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
>>problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
>>guns in that Walmart.
>>
>>It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
>>"corporate".
>>
>>Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
>>live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
>>from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
>>principles.
>
>
> Google: walmart gun sales
>
> A year+ ago Walmart announced they were dropping gun sales in approx 1/3
> of their stores. They said the decision was based whether guns were the
> best use of the sales space in individual stores. I don't expect them to
> drop gun sales here anytime soon, but in the last store reconfiguration,
> flat screen TVs were the winner.


A while back as I browsed the sporting goods section at Walmart it
occurred to me I needed some rifle ammo but the clerk said he couldn't
sell ammo after 11pm., don't recall whether this was just on a
particular night or every night, but the curfew on ammo sales stuck me
as odd. I drove home wondering how many instances of robbery or domestic
violence are thwarted by this policy.

AL

[Elmo]

AL wrote:
> Ann wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:30:01 +0000, Pat wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
>>> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
>>> polarization.
>>>
>>> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
>>> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
>>> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
>>> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
>>> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
>>> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
>>> guns in that Walmart.
>>>
>>> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
>>> "corporate".
>>>
>>> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
>>> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
>>> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
>>> principles.
>>
>>
>> Google: walmart gun sales
>>
>> A year+ ago Walmart announced they were dropping gun sales in approx 1/3
>> of their stores. They said the decision was based whether guns were the
>> best use of the sales space in individual stores. I don't expect them to
>> drop gun sales here anytime soon, but in the last store reconfiguration,
>> flat screen TVs were the winner.
>
>
> A while back as I browsed the sporting goods section at Walmart it
> occurred to me I needed some rifle ammo but the clerk said he couldn't
> sell ammo after 11pm., don't recall whether this was just on a
> particular night or every night, but the curfew on ammo sales stuck me
> as odd. I drove home wondering how many instances of robbery or domestic
> violence are thwarted by this policy.
>
> AL
>

Maybe it stops people from jacklighting deer after the bars have closed.

[j***@rgs.uci.edu]

On Jun 21, 8:30 pm, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
> polarization.
>
> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
> guns in that Walmart.
>
> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
> "corporate".
>
> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
> principles.
I think it's because of lawsuits.

Wal-Mart to Pay $14.5 Million for California Gun Law Violations

<http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/walmart_ca_gun_laws.html>

Rather than train their people to follow the laws, they decided to
stop selling guns.

[Ann]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:23:59 -0700, jpolaski wrote:

> On Jun 21, 8:30 pm, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
>> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
>> polarization.
>>
>> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
>> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
>> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
>> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents of
>> all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a problem
>> but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy guns in that
>> Walmart.
>>
>> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
>> "corporate".
>>
>> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
>> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
>> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
>> principles.
> I think it's because of lawsuits.
>
> Wal-Mart to Pay $14.5 Million for California Gun Law Violations
>
> <http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/walmart_ca_gun_laws.html>
>
> Rather than train their people to follow the laws, they decided to stop
> selling guns.

That wasn't technically a lawsuit, but the decision did put Walmart at
risk of being sued by a crime victim(s) if a gun used had been sold there
in violation of the law. According to what I found, Walmart didn't find
it worth their while to comply with the New Jersey gun sales regulations;
they didn't/don't sell guns there.

[Bay Area Holdout]

There are few Wal-Marts in the Bay Area. Part of the overall "hate" of the
big box stores that liberals seem to have..go figure.

Was always the best place to buy 12 gauge for a decent price. I bought in
bulk for trap shooting, several cases for the duration of the season.
Side comment: I always loved the looks from the folks waiting in line. Me
there with my shopping cart load of 2000 rounds of 12 gauge ammo! Priceless!
I just would smile back.

After the lawsuit mentioned above, the two or three Wal-Marts that are
reasonable close by no longer sell ammo or guns. I've yet to check out a
Wal-Mart outside the large urban jungle I live in.
Next trip up I-5 to Oregon perhaps I'll checkout Redding. If any W-M in
California would still carry ammo and guns it would be there. If not than I
guess the whole state is a write off!

For now it just leaves Big 5 for ammo besides the straight gun shops which
are also getting harder to find.

Anyone tried mail order ammo? Prices look okay but I wonder about the
shipping costs killing any advantage there?

Still hoping to be able to bail out of this place soon, until then.

BAHO


<***@rgs.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:***@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 8:30 pm, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
>> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
>> polarization.
>>
>> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
>> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
>> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
>> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
>> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
>> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
>> guns in that Walmart.
>>
>> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
>> "corporate".
>>
>> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
>> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
>> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
>> principles.
> I think it's because of lawsuits.
>
> Wal-Mart to Pay $14.5 Million for California Gun Law Violations
>
> <http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/walmart_ca_gun_laws.html>
>
> Rather than train their people to follow the laws, they decided to
> stop selling guns.
>
>
>

[George Conklin]

"Bay Area Holdout" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DeVli.18920$***@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> There are few Wal-Marts in the Bay Area. Part of the overall "hate" of the
> big box stores that liberals seem to have..go figure.
>
> Was always the best place to buy 12 gauge for a decent price. I bought in
> bulk for trap shooting, several cases for the duration of the season.
> Side comment: I always loved the looks from the folks waiting in line. Me
> there with my shopping cart load of 2000 rounds of 12 gauge ammo!
Priceless!
> I just would smile back.
>
> After the lawsuit mentioned above, the two or three Wal-Marts that are
> reasonable close by no longer sell ammo or guns. I've yet to check out a
> Wal-Mart outside the large urban jungle I live in.
> Next trip up I-5 to Oregon perhaps I'll checkout Redding. If any W-M in
> California would still carry ammo and guns it would be there. If not than
I
> guess the whole state is a write off!
>
> For now it just leaves Big 5 for ammo besides the straight gun shops which
> are also getting harder to find.
>
> Anyone tried mail order ammo? Prices look okay but I wonder about the
> shipping costs killing any advantage there?
>
> Still hoping to be able to bail out of this place soon, until then.
>
> BAHO
>
>
> <***@rgs.uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 21, 8:30 pm, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> >> I was looking for a new pair of sunglasses, so I went to the sporting
> >> goods department at Walmart because fishing glasses have good
> >> polarization.
> >>
> >> As I was trying out the new shades, I saw the gun rack (glass) and
> >> thought that was a good test. As the new shades dutifully cut the
> >> glare, I saw a sign above the guns that gave restrictions on who could
> >> buy guns at the store (in NYS). Basically, it showed that residents
> >> of all of the states east of the Rockies could buy guns without a
> >> problem but that people who live west of the Rockies could not buy
> >> guns in that Walmart.
> >>
> >> It was a professionally printed sign that looked like it came from
> >> "corporate".
> >>
> >> Any ideas as to why gun purchases would be restricted by where you
> >> live. As I said, it is in NY. ... and no snide comments that people
> >> from California shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just on basic
> >> principles.
> > I think it's because of lawsuits.
> >
> > Wal-Mart to Pay $14.5 Million for California Gun Law Violations
> >
> > <http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/walmart_ca_gun_laws.html>
> >
> > Rather than train their people to follow the laws, they decided to
> > stop selling guns.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
It takes a long time to buy a gun from Wal-Mart, and involves the
department head and the manager the store, each checking each other's
figures and paperwork. One reads off the serial number after the first one
writes it down. Then they call the FBI, and get a number for that. In the
end, the package the gun up again and escort you out of the store with it.
In the parking lot, they turn you loose. It is quite a production. The
super center at Brier Creek in Raleigh stopped selling guns entirely.

[Jim]

George Conklin wrote:
>
[....]
> It takes a long time to buy a gun from Wal-Mart, and involves the
[....]
> super center at Brier Creek in Raleigh stopped selling guns entirely.

with no safe places left to hunt in Wake county is
there really a need for retail outlets selling firearms
in Wake county?

times have changed. 40 years ago when Wake county was
90% open space or considered rural country side there
were many places where one could go and safely target
shoot or hunt. with the county population now exceeding
758,000 people and with 70% of the land under the
jurisdiction of any one of several townships there's
really no safe place other than the indoor shooting ranges
to discharge firearms.

I actually foresee a time in the not so distance future
when the 2nd amendment is repealed and the private ownership
of all firearms is prohibited. for example, looking back at
the political history of legislation concerning restrictions
on firearms and then looking closer to determine who introduced
the legislation we find 95% of that legislation was introduced
by democrats. with the repubs having recently made a grand
mess of the federal government I predict we'll end up with a
democrat in the white house and a democrat majority in congress
setting the stage for their agenda concerning firearm ownership
in america.

have a nice day.

[George Conklin]

"Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@bellsouth.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> >
> [....]
> > It takes a long time to buy a gun from Wal-Mart, and involves the
> [....]
> > super center at Brier Creek in Raleigh stopped selling guns entirely.
>
> with no safe places left to hunt in Wake county is
> there really a need for retail outlets selling firearms
> in Wake county?

One does not buy a gun in the county where it is used. Guns are not
county-specific.

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pD1mi.7902$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:***@bellsouth.net...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>> >
>> [....]
>> > It takes a long time to buy a gun from Wal-Mart, and involves the
>> [....]
>> > super center at Brier Creek in Raleigh stopped selling guns entirely.
>>
>> with no safe places left to hunt in Wake county is
>> there really a need for retail outlets selling firearms
>> in Wake county?
>
> One does not buy a gun in the county where it is used. Guns are not
> county-specific.

Plus, you might want to shoot someone.

[Doug Miller]

In article <h77mi.12448$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>
>"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:pD1mi.7902$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@bellsouth.net...
>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> >
>>> [....]
>>> > It takes a long time to buy a gun from Wal-Mart, and involves the
>>> [....]
>>> > super center at Brier Creek in Raleigh stopped selling guns entirely.
>>>
>>> with no safe places left to hunt in Wake county is
>>> there really a need for retail outlets selling firearms
>>> in Wake county?
>>
>> One does not buy a gun in the county where it is used. Guns are not
>> county-specific.
>
>Plus, you might want to shoot someone.

Rather more to the point is that you might *need* to.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <h77mi.12448$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:pD1mi.7902$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> >> "Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>news:***@bellsouth.net...
> >>> George Conklin wrote:
>
> >>> [....]
> >>> > It takes a long time to buy a gun from Wal-Mart, and involves the
> >>> [....]
> >>> > super center at Brier Creek in Raleigh stopped selling guns entirely.
>
> >>> with no safe places left to hunt in Wake county is
> >>> there really a need for retail outlets selling firearms
> >>> in Wake county?
>
> >> One does not buy a gun in the county where it is used. Guns are not
> >> county-specific.
>
> >Plus, you might want to shoot someone.
>
> Rather more to the point is that you might *need* to.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yepper, oh Mister Gun Nut, like your wife or your kids, or your
neighbor, or his kids, or your kids can take one of your hundreds of
guns to school and shoot other kids or even their teachers, or
principals.

Lovely situation, oh Mister Gun Nut. I love your kind. Instead of
tea, why don't you jump in the harbor weighted down by all the guns
you love so very mucch.

And you know what else you will need to shoot oh Mister Gun Nut is all
the people you work with, and your bosses, and maybe even their
customers.

I am waiting with baited breath to see you name on the news, oh Mister
Gun Nut.

But I guess that is what those heavily armed SWAT teams are useful
for.

Very nice talking to you oh Mister Gun Nut. Please lets do it more
often.

Randy

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <h77mi.12448$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Amy Blankenship"
> <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >Plus, you might want to shoot someone.
>>
>> Rather more to the point is that you might *need* to.
>>
>Yepper, oh Mister Gun Nut, like your wife or your kids, or your
>neighbor, or his kids, or your kids can take one of your hundreds of
>guns to school and shoot other kids or even their teachers, or
>principals.

No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my house in
the middle of the night.

Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless against armed
thugs?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <h77mi.12448$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >> >Plus, you might want to shoot someone.
>
> >> Rather more to the point is that you might *need* to.
>
> >Yepper, oh Mister Gun Nut, like your wife or your kids, or your
> >neighbor, or his kids, or your kids can take one of your hundreds of
> >guns to school and shoot other kids or even their teachers, or
> >principals.
>
> No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my house in
> the middle of the night.
>
> Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless against armed
> thugs?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Oh, yeah, you are so defenseless. Oh my gawd, it just takes the
police forever to get there. And there are so very many breakins of
occupied dwellings, my gawd we all should be armed to the teeth just
for that. And we should fire all of the cops and sheriff's deps as we
no longer need them.

You sir, remain a gun nut. Your guns ARE NOT for your protection,
That is merely a convenient excuse. You love your guns, you probably
love them more then you love your wife and kids. You probably take
them out to look at them and clean them (petting) all day and all
night.

I am going to tell you what the odds are. Those guns you love so much
will in all likelyhood NEVER be used for protection. But what they
will be used for is what I listed in my first post to you.

Again, that is the reason we have SWAT teams.

Again, nice talking to you, oh Mr Gun Nut. You are probably typing
with one hand and petting one of your loved guns with the other. Or
most certainly you are about to pet one, and you are looking at it so
very longingly.

Randy

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article <h77mi.12448$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Amy
> Blankenship"
>> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >> >Plus, you might want to shoot someone.
>>
>> >> Rather more to the point is that you might *need* to.
>>
>> >Yepper, oh Mister Gun Nut, like your wife or your kids, or your
>> >neighbor, or his kids, or your kids can take one of your hundreds of
>> >guns to school and shoot other kids or even their teachers, or
>> >principals.
>>
>> No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my house in
>> the middle of the night.
>>
>> Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless against armed
>> thugs?
>>
>Oh, yeah, you are so defenseless. Oh my gawd, it just takes the
>police forever to get there. And there are so very many breakins of
>occupied dwellings, my gawd we all should be armed to the teeth just
>for that. And we should fire all of the cops and sheriff's deps as we
>no longer need them.

Even in cities, it takes the police a lot longer to get there than it does for
a violent crime to be committed. Only the naive and foolish believe that the
police will protect them. The wise and realistic provide for their own
self-defense, because we understand that the police respond to, and
investigate, crimes -- not prevent them.

>You sir, remain a gun nut.

And you sir, remain a naive fool.

>Your guns ARE NOT for your protection,

Not exclusively, no. I use them for hunting and target shooting, too.

>That is merely a convenient excuse. You love your guns, you probably
>love them more then you love your wife and kids. You probably take
>them out to look at them and clean them (petting) all day and all
>night.

ROTFLMAO! You really seem to have an odd fixation.
>
>I am going to tell you what the odds are. Those guns you love so much
>will in all likelyhood NEVER be used for protection.

Guess again. I've already had to do that three times: once against a human,
who rapidly changed his mind about assaulting me when he saw that I was armed,
and twice against vicious dogs. One of the dogs is no longer living. The other
one changed its mind, too -- apparently it had been shot at before, and knew
what a gun was.

I've never fired a gun at a human, and I hope I never need to. But I hope even
more that *you* never need to, because you don't have the means to defend
yourself. Why anyone would voluntarily render himself and his family
defenseless passes my understanding. But that's your choice. I just hope that
your family doesn't have to some day bear the consequences of your foolish
cowardice.

> But what they
>will be used for is what I listed in my first post to you.

You really should see a therapist.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 14, 5:48 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article <h77mi.12448$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Amy
> > Blankenship"
> >> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Plus, you might want to shoot someone.
>
> >> >> Rather more to the point is that you might *need* to.
>
> >> >Yepper, oh Mister Gun Nut, like your wife or your kids, or your
> >> >neighbor, or his kids, or your kids can take one of your hundreds of
> >> >guns to school and shoot other kids or even their teachers, or
> >> >principals.
>
> >> No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my house in
> >> the middle of the night.
>
> >> Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless against armed
> >> thugs?
>
> >Oh, yeah, you are so defenseless. Oh my gawd, it just takes the
> >police forever to get there. And there are so very many breakins of
> >occupied dwellings, my gawd we all should be armed to the teeth just
> >for that. And we should fire all of the cops and sheriff's deps as we
> >no longer need them.
>
> Even in cities, it takes the police a lot longer to get there than it does for
> a violent crime to be committed. Only the naive and foolish believe that the
> police will protect them. The wise and realistic provide for their own
> self-defense, because we understand that the police respond to, and
> investigate, crimes -- not prevent them.
>
> >You sir, remain a gun nut.
>
> And you sir, remain a naive fool.
>
> >Your guns ARE NOT for your protection,
>
> Not exclusively, no. I use them for hunting and target shooting, too.
>
> >That is merely a convenient excuse. You love your guns, you probably
> >love them more then you love your wife and kids. You probably take
> >them out to look at them and clean them (petting) all day and all
> >night.
>
> ROTFLMAO! You really seem to have an odd fixation.
>
>
>
> >I am going to tell you what the odds are. Those guns you love so much
> >will in all likelyhood NEVER be used for protection.
>
> Guess again. I've already had to do that three times: once against a human,
> who rapidly changed his mind about assaulting me when he saw that I was armed,
> and twice against vicious dogs. One of the dogs is no longer living. The other
> one changed its mind, too -- apparently it had been shot at before, and knew
> what a gun was.
>
> I've never fired a gun at a human, and I hope I never need to. But I hope even
> more that *you* never need to, because you don't have the means to defend
> yourself. Why anyone would voluntarily render himself and his family
> defenseless passes my understanding. But that's your choice. I just hope that
> your family doesn't have to some day bear the consequences of your foolish
> cowardice.
>
> > But what they
> >will be used for is what I listed in my first post to you.
>
> You really should see a therapist.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You remain a gun nut, I would not remain in such a dangerous area if
you have to worry about home invaders AND wild dogs. I would not live
in such a dangerous area, but like most gun nuts your income does not
permit you to move to a safer area, so you remain wedded to your loved
guns.

I should see a therapist??? Why do you remain in such a dangerous
environment???

Believe me, where I live home invasions of occupied dwellings are very
unheard of and if we need our local police they are there in 3-4
minutes. Even B & E's of homes when the occupants are away are
realtively rare.

For the thrid time, what I said your loved guns will likely be used
for, remains very likely.

Go clean you guns (pet) one more time. I am sure it is so enjoyable.

Randy

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>You remain a gun nut, I would not remain in such a dangerous area if
>you have to worry about home invaders AND wild dogs. I would not live
>in such a dangerous area, but like most gun nuts your income does not
>permit you to move to a safer area, so you remain wedded to your loved
>guns.

Actually, those incidents all occurred *before* I moved.
>
>I should see a therapist???

Yes, you should, because of your fixation on guns as sexual objects.
>
>Believe me, where I live home invasions of occupied dwellings are very
>unheard of

Liar. Your IP address shows Newark NJ USA.

>and if we need our local police they are there in 3-4
>minutes.

How long does it take for a housebreaker to shoot you?

>Even B & E's of homes when the occupants are away are
>realtively rare.

In Newark NJ? You're a liar.
>
>For the thrid time, what I said your loved guns will likely be used
>for, remains very likely.
>
>Go clean you guns (pet) one more time. I am sure it is so enjoyable.

You really need to see a therapist for help with your sexual fixations.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 12:23 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You remain a gun nut, I would not remain in such a dangerous area if
> >you have to worry about home invaders AND wild dogs. I would not live
> >in such a dangerous area, but like most gun nuts your income does not
> >permit you to move to a safer area, so you remain wedded to your loved
> >guns.
>
> Actually, those incidents all occurred *before* I moved.
>
>
>
> >I should see a therapist???
>
> Yes, you should, because of your fixation on guns as sexual objects.
>
>
>
> >Believe me, where I live home invasions of occupied dwellings are very
> >unheard of
>
> Liar. Your IP address shows Newark NJ USA.
>
> >and if we need our local police they are there in 3-4
> >minutes.
>
> How long does it take for a housebreaker to shoot you?
>
> >Even B & E's of homes when the occupants are away are
> >realtively rare.
>
> In Newark NJ? You're a liar.


And that means I live there???? Please for a variety of reasons get
your head out of your arse. I told you what the police and crime are
like where I do live. As I told you, I would not live in a dangerous
place. I don't go to Paradise on the Passaic very often, hardly at
all.

There are 565 other municipalities in NJ. I live in Union County.

I will explain something to you. This will go 1000 miles over your gun
loving head, but no matter. NJ has a very tough law re: possessing
firearms. Are you with me so far?

It is NOT impossible to obtain a firearm, but it makes ot more
difficult and what you will find even more difficult to comprehend,
more expensive. And the gun laws in towns like mine are very strictly
enforced.

IOW if some one suspicious gets stopped in a veh for a traffic offense
in my town and a search is undertaken and a gun is found, the perp IS
going to jail. If he has a felony conviction, he will be there for a
very long time on a very high bail.

That is what a police PRESENCE is for.

Look up the crime rates in some of the towns in Union County.

I will give you a hint, I DO NOT live in Elizabeth, Linden, Rahway, or
Plainfield.





>
>
>
> >For the thrid time, what I said your loved guns will likely be used
> >for, remains very likely.
>
> >Go clean you guns (pet) one more time. I am sure it is so enjoyable.
>
> You really need to see a therapist for help with your sexual fixations.
>

I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.

But I am willing to bet you are cleaning one or more of your guns all
day long.

And you love you guns more then you love your family.

And you say I need therapy. As I said, please get you head out of
your arse.


Randy



> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


Naah, throw yourself holding all of your beloved guns into the harbor.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>And that means I live there???? Please for a variety of reasons get
>your head out of your arse. I told you what the police and crime are
>like where I do live. As I told you, I would not live in a dangerous
>place. I don't go to Paradise on the Passaic very often, hardly at
>all.
>
>There are 565 other municipalities in NJ. I live in Union County.

Too bad you can't afford to live somewhere nicer.
>
>I will explain something to you. This will go 1000 miles over your gun
>loving head, but no matter. NJ has a very tough law re: possessing
>firearms. Are you with me so far?

Yep -- I understand that people in NJ would prefer that only the criminals
have guns. I like it better here in Indiana, where the law-abiding people have
the ability to defend themselves against armed thugs -- of which we have far
fewer than NJ does.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 1:50 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >And that means I live there???? Please for a variety of reasons get
> >your head out of your arse. I told you what the police and crime are
> >like where I do live. As I told you, I would not live in a dangerous
> >place. I don't go to Paradise on the Passaic very often, hardly at
> >all.
>
> >There are 565 other municipalities in NJ. I live in Union County.
>
> Too bad you can't afford to live somewhere nicer.
>
>

Bet my town is much richer then the county you live in.

I will bet you Union County is much richer then the county you live
in.

I can guarantee you Indiana is abject poverty compared to NJ.

Do you have any concept of what per capita income is????

I will bet I make more at my part time job then what you do at what
ever you do full time.

Wal Mart esp in IN does not pay more then $6 an hour for grunts.




>
> >I will explain something to you. This will go 1000 miles over your gun
> >loving head, but no matter. NJ has a very tough law re: possessing
> >firearms. Are you with me so far?
>
> Yep -- I understand that people in NJ would prefer that only the criminals
> have guns. I like it better here in Indiana, where the law-abiding people have
> the ability to defend themselves against armed thugs -- of which we have far
> fewer than NJ does.
>
> --

You have NO idea what you are talking about. Why don't you Google the
respective homicide rates in NJ and IN. Bet your gun loving IN is
higher.

You might have far fewer, but only because IN is a smaller state in
terms of population, and more rural.
Also, I will bet the overall crime rate in impoverished IN is higher.

I know you won't do it but I already told you to Google the crime
rates for those towns in Union County.
You don't have the guts to do it, it will make you look like the idiot
you are.

I know I am being repetitive, but it is NOT being received.

It is a police PRESENCE the deters crime. Shall I say it again, and
hopefully it comes through, a police PRESENCE.

Do some research and you might learn something instead of taking the
idiots at the NRA for gospel.

And BTW look up what per capita income is.








> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. and you with it.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>I can guarantee you Indiana is abject poverty compared to NJ.

Uh-huh. $200K buys a pretty nice house here. What do you pay a month to rent
your one-bedroom apartment?
>
>Do you have any concept of what per capita income is????

Of course. I would ask you if you have any concept of what a reasonable cost
of living is, but since you're from Jersey, obviously you don't.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 2:57 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I can guarantee you Indiana is abject poverty compared to NJ.
>
> Uh-huh. $200K buys a pretty nice house here. What do you pay a month to rent
> your one-bedroom apartment?
>
>
>
> >Do you have any concept of what per capita income is????
>
> Of course. I would ask you if you have any concept of what a reasonable cost
> of living is, but since you're from Jersey, obviously you don't.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

I do not choose to live in an abjectly impoverished state like
Indiana, no matter what reasonable cost is.

Everything, and I do mean everything is better here then IN.

And I am sure we have far fewer illiterates then Indiana.

I can live anywhere than I want, and I choose to live here.

Hold on to your beloved firearm, because I will tell you. And please
don't shoot yourself. Then again we would definately be better off
without you.

I pay $250 a month to share the upstairs of a two family house w/two
roomates. It is a three bedroom so we each have our own room and
share the rest.

The landlord and his family live downstairs.

No, I will probably never own my own home, but I never really wanted
to.

___________________________________________________________



Re: VT, I will explain it to you, but I am sure it, as with
everything else will go thousands of miles over your gun loving head.

There were two problems. Firstly he easily ACQUIRED the firearms. It
should not be so easy for anyone to do that.
Secondly, oh Mister gun nut, there was a decided lack of police
PRESENCE on the VT campus.

No, oh, Mister Gun Nut, we are never going to have police everywhere,
but I would decidedly rather have a police PRESENCE and lack of ease
of the ability of acquiring firearms then have a free fire exercise in
a classroom setting.

But you Mister gun nut, who most assuredly have NEVER been on a
college campus, have not a clue.

Keep accepting the NRA's crapola as gospel, keep cleaning and petting
you guns, and pulease make it so very easy for nuts like you to
acquire guns.

Eventually someone will see your hundreds and hundreds of guns, and
you will join the rest of the criminals in jail right there in Indiana.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>I pay $250 a month to share the upstairs of a two family house w/two
>roomates. It is a three bedroom so we each have our own room and
>share the rest.
>
>The landlord and his family live downstairs.
>
>No, I will probably never own my own home, but I never really wanted
>to.

ROTFLMAO! You can't afford to, you mean.
>
>Re: VT, I will explain it to you, but I am sure it, as with
>everything else will go thousands of miles over your gun loving head.
[snip]
>But you Mister gun nut, who most assuredly have NEVER been on a
>college campus, have not a clue.

I've definitely spent more time on a college campus than you:

BS, Computer Science, Butler University, Indianapolis, 1978
MA, Computer Science, Ball State University, Muncie IN, 1991

When do you graduate, junior?

-plonk- don't bother responding; I won't see it.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 4:46 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I pay $250 a month to share the upstairs of a two family house w/two
> >roomates. It is a three bedroom so we each have our own room and
> >share the rest.
>
> >The landlord and his family live downstairs.
>
> >No, I will probably never own my own home, but I never really wanted
> >to.
>
> ROTFLMAO! You can't afford to, you mean.
>
>
>
> >Re: VT, I will explain it to you, but I am sure it, as with
> >everything else will go thousands of miles over your gun loving head.
> [snip]
> >But you Mister gun nut, who most assuredly have NEVER been on a
> >college campus, have not a clue.
>
> I've definitely spent more time on a college campus than you:
>
> BS, Computer Science, Butler University, Indianapolis, 1978
> MA, Computer Science, Ball State University, Muncie IN, 1991
>
> When do you graduate, junior?
>
> -plonk- don't bother responding; I won't see it.

Why don't you take the guns you love so much, and shoot what litle
brains you have right out of your narrow minded head.

In the mean time go fuck yourself.

[NapalmHeart]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 4:46 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <***@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I pay $250 a month to share the upstairs of a two family house w/two
>> >roomates. It is a three bedroom so we each have our own room and
>> >share the rest.
>>
>> >The landlord and his family live downstairs.
>>
>> >No, I will probably never own my own home, but I never really wanted
>> >to.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! You can't afford to, you mean.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Re: VT, I will explain it to you, but I am sure it, as with
>> >everything else will go thousands of miles over your gun loving head.
>> [snip]
>> >But you Mister gun nut, who most assuredly have NEVER been on a
>> >college campus, have not a clue.
>>
>> I've definitely spent more time on a college campus than you:
>>
>> BS, Computer Science, Butler University, Indianapolis, 1978
>> MA, Computer Science, Ball State University, Muncie IN, 1991
>>
>> When do you graduate, junior?
>>
>> -plonk- don't bother responding; I won't see it.
>
> Why don't you take the guns you love so much, and shoot what litle
> brains you have right out of your narrow minded head.
>
> In the mean time go fuck yourself.
>

The comments of the defeated.

[Jim]

pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
>
[....]
>
> I will bet I make more at my part time job then what you do at what
> ever you do full time.

if life is so wonderful in nj then why do you have a part time job?
if life is so wonderful in nj then why are thousands of people moving
from nj to NC?

just asking... <g>

[Jim]

pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
>
[....]
> >
>
> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.

there ought to be a law against people paying
others to do for them that which they refuse
to do for themselves.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@bellsouth.net...
> pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
>>
> [....]
>> >
>>
>> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
>> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.
>
> there ought to be a law against people paying
> others to do for them that which they refuse
> to do for themselves.

Do you clean your own sewer? Slaughter your own hamburger?

[Jim]

Amy Blankenship wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
> >>
> > [....]
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
> >> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.
> >
> > there ought to be a law against people paying
> > others to do for them that which they refuse
> > to do for themselves.
>
> Do you clean your own sewer?

yes, several times a week I sprinkle in the
cleanser swish with the brush and then flush.

> Slaughter your own hamburger?

been there done that. tossed the T-shirt afterward.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@bellsouth.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>> > pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
>> >>
>> > [....]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
>> >> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.
>> >
>> > there ought to be a law against people paying
>> > others to do for them that which they refuse
>> > to do for themselves.
>>
>> Do you clean your own sewer?
>
> yes, several times a week I sprinkle in the
> cleanser swish with the brush and then flush.
>
>> Slaughter your own hamburger?
>
> been there done that. tossed the T-shirt afterward.

How bout your mother or your wife? Would you want her doing that?

[Jim]

Amy Blankenship wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
> >> Jim wrote:
> >> > pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > [....]
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
> >> >> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.
> >> >
> >> > there ought to be a law against people paying
> >> > others to do for them that which they refuse
> >> > to do for themselves.
> >>
> >> Do you clean your own sewer?
> >
> > yes, several times a week I sprinkle in the
> > cleanser swish with the brush and then flush.
> >
> >> Slaughter your own hamburger?
> >
> > been there done that. tossed the T-shirt afterward.
>
> How bout your mother or your wife? Would you want her doing that?

Amy, we are Country foke who grow our own food and
hunt down and kill our own meat.

I suspect you are by nature an urbanite, lover of
concrete and street lights.

btw - we're domesticated enough so when the house needs
house cleaning we do that too.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@bellsouth.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> >> Jim wrote:
>> >> > pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> > [....]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional
>> >> >> police
>> >> >> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.
>> >> >
>> >> > there ought to be a law against people paying
>> >> > others to do for them that which they refuse
>> >> > to do for themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Do you clean your own sewer?
>> >
>> > yes, several times a week I sprinkle in the
>> > cleanser swish with the brush and then flush.
>> >
>> >> Slaughter your own hamburger?
>> >
>> > been there done that. tossed the T-shirt afterward.
>>
>> How bout your mother or your wife? Would you want her doing that?
>
> Amy, we are Country foke who grow our own food and
> hunt down and kill our own meat.

And send your wimminfolk down into the septic tank when it needs a cleaning?
How quaint!

> I suspect you are by nature an urbanite, lover of
> concrete and street lights.

ROFLMAO. Yeah. <chuckle>

[Jim]

Amy Blankenship wrote:

> Jim wrote:

[....]
>
> > I suspect you are by nature an urbanite, lover of
> > concrete and street lights.
>
> ROFLMAO. Yeah. <chuckle>

ok. if you've got anything to do with 'planning urban' growth
I'd like to say I fully support up and not out. city people need
to be contained in as small an area as possible so as to limit
their negative impact on the rural Country side. so, build your
buildings taller and pack more city people into them. be sure and
tax them adequately to ensure municipal services are able to control
every aspect of their concrete loving street light hugging lives.

thanks
<g>

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@bellsouth.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>
> [....]
>>
>> > I suspect you are by nature an urbanite, lover of
>> > concrete and street lights.
>>
>> ROFLMAO. Yeah. <chuckle>
>
> ok. if you've got anything to do with 'planning urban' growth
> I'd like to say I fully support up and not out. city people need
> to be contained in as small an area as possible so as to limit
> their negative impact on the rural Country side. so, build your
> buildings taller and pack more city people into them. be sure and
> tax them adequately to ensure municipal services are able to control
> every aspect of their concrete loving street light hugging lives.

That's roughly the idea, if a little crudely put.

[Jim]

Amy Blankenship wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
> >> Jim wrote:
> >
> > [....]
> >>
> >> > I suspect you are by nature an urbanite, lover of
> >> > concrete and street lights.
> >>
> >> ROFLMAO. Yeah. <chuckle>
> >
> > ok. if you've got anything to do with 'planning urban' growth
> > I'd like to say I fully support up and not out. city people need
> > to be contained in as small an area as possible so as to limit
> > their negative impact on the rural Country side. so, build your
> > buildings taller and pack more city people into them. be sure and
> > tax them adequately to ensure municipal services are able to control
> > every aspect of their concrete loving street light hugging lives.
>
> That's roughly the idea, if a little crudely put.

well yea. for sure if I'd been over in that ever expanding
town attempting to protect my Farm from being wiped out and
over run by concrete and street lights a completely different
method of articulating my desires would have been utilized.
one more in keeping with the sensitive wittle feelings of
city people. causing the city people to get upset and cry
is certainly not going to do my cause any great good.

now concerning your urban planning. when city people are
taxed properly and adequately should city people be left
with any disposable income? the vast majority of city
people seem to prefer lots of government restrictions, say
like restrictions on firearms. seems to me how allowing
city people any disposable income might contribute to some
individualistic thinking and thus detract from the borg like
centralist cogitative where sacrifice of the individual's
freedom is deemed necessary for the overall good of the
efficient functioning of the city machine.

you would not want someone buying a monkey wrench and then
tossing it into the machine now would you?

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@bellsouth.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> >> Jim wrote:
>> >
>> > [....]
>> >>
>> >> > I suspect you are by nature an urbanite, lover of
>> >> > concrete and street lights.
>> >>
>> >> ROFLMAO. Yeah. <chuckle>
>> >
>> > ok. if you've got anything to do with 'planning urban' growth
>> > I'd like to say I fully support up and not out. city people need
>> > to be contained in as small an area as possible so as to limit
>> > their negative impact on the rural Country side. so, build your
>> > buildings taller and pack more city people into them. be sure and
>> > tax them adequately to ensure municipal services are able to control
>> > every aspect of their concrete loving street light hugging lives.
>>
>> That's roughly the idea, if a little crudely put.
>
> well yea. for sure if I'd been over in that ever expanding
> town attempting to protect my Farm from being wiped out and
> over run by concrete and street lights a completely different
> method of articulating my desires would have been utilized.
> one more in keeping with the sensitive wittle feelings of
> city people. causing the city people to get upset and cry
> is certainly not going to do my cause any great good.

I think it's as much of an educational process for the country people as the
city people. Most of the country people don't look past the first wave of
conveniences that come with spawl. They don't realize that the inevitable
result of that is that a developer will buy out their neighbor and put up a
housing development. Or they do realize that, but figure objecting to it is
somehow unamerican.

> now concerning your urban planning. when city people are
> taxed properly and adequately should city people be left
> with any disposable income? the vast majority of city
> people seem to prefer lots of government restrictions, say
> like restrictions on firearms. seems to me how allowing
> city people any disposable income might contribute to some
> individualistic thinking and thus detract from the borg like
> centralist cogitative where sacrifice of the individual's
> freedom is deemed necessary for the overall good of the
> efficient functioning of the city machine.

One could argue that the country people are benefiting from keeping the city
people in the city, and so they should be willing to pay for things that
encourage them to stay there.

[enigma]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
in news:0KVmi.29955$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:***@bellsouth.net...
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> Slaughter your own hamburger?
>>
>> been there done that. tossed the T-shirt afterward.
>
> How bout your mother or your wife? Would you want her
> doing that?

huh? i realize you're a vegetarian, but explain exactly why
it would be somehow "worse" if his mother or wife was the one
slaughtering the cow/steer for beef?
i took meat cutting in college because it was a required
course for my major. i also sat in on abattoir management even
though it wasn't required. i was vegetarian at the time (for
20 years. i've grown out of it) & while i thought it was
rather gross, i survived. i would have to trouble killing &
eating my own food animals. in a way, i'd prefer it if i
wasn't able to get meat from someone i know.
lee

[Amy Blankenship]

"enigma" <***@evil.net> wrote in message
news:***@199.125.85.9...
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
> in news:0KVmi.29955$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
>>
>> "Jim" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@bellsouth.net...
>>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>>> Slaughter your own hamburger?
>>>
>>> been there done that. tossed the T-shirt afterward.
>>
>> How bout your mother or your wife? Would you want her
>> doing that?
>
> huh? i realize you're a vegetarian, but explain exactly why
> it would be somehow "worse" if his mother or wife was the one
> slaughtering the cow/steer for beef?

I was more talking about cleaning the sewers, actually, which you snipped.
I actually already have an appointment with the headsman to help me learn to
humanely recycle my chickens. I do in fact believe I should take
responsibility for my food.

But, really, saying there should be a _law_against paying people to do
things you're not willing to do yourself? Think of all the elderly people
who would languish because their families are not willing to care for them,
yet are willing to pay someone to do it. And speaking of the elderly, I
have visions of little old ladies riding around on the backs of garbage
trucks. The mind boggles.

> i took meat cutting in college because it was a required
> course for my major. i also sat in on abattoir management even
> though it wasn't required. i was vegetarian at the time (for
> 20 years. i've grown out of it) & while i thought it was
> rather gross, i survived. i would have to trouble killing &
> eating my own food animals. in a way, i'd prefer it if i
> wasn't able to get meat from someone i know.

I think maybe you've lost track of my point in the specific examples I used.

-Amy

[enigma]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
in news:0N4ni.143$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

> I was more talking about cleaning the sewers, actually,
> which you snipped. I actually already have an appointment
> with the headsman to help me learn to humanely recycle my
> chickens. I do in fact believe I should take
> responsibility for my food.

ah, ok. i'm the one that digs up the septic tank every 3 years
for the sewage pumper, too. it just happens that i know where
the openings are, so it's become my job.
i imagine if we had an outhouse or a composting toilet, at
least half the time it would be my job to clean those too.
some jobs on the farm *are* disgusting, but none should be
gender specific.

> But, really, saying there should be a _law_against paying
> people to do things you're not willing to do yourself?
> Think of all the elderly people who would languish because
> their families are not willing to care for them, yet are
> willing to pay someone to do it. And speaking of the
> elderly, I have visions of little old ladies riding around
> on the backs of garbage trucks. The mind boggles.

Jim gets a bit carried away with the rhetoric sometimes. after
all, in most rural areas you *do* have to pay someone to haul
off your non-recyclable trash. you can't burn it or bury it as
our ancestors did.
also, Jim has a "thing" against health care (god provides,
you know), so he most likely isn't considering the fact that
health care allows people to become elderly & well, elderly
rural residents frequently do NOT want to go live in some city
managed care facility. they want to die at home.

lee

[AL]

enigma wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
> in news:0N4ni.143$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>>I was more talking about cleaning the sewers, actually,
>>which you snipped. I actually already have an appointment
>>with the headsman to help me learn to humanely recycle my
>>chickens. I do in fact believe I should take
>>responsibility for my food.
>
>
> ah, ok. i'm the one that digs up the septic tank every 3 years
> for the sewage pumper, too. it just happens that i know where
> the openings are, so it's become my job.
> i imagine if we had an outhouse or a composting toilet, at
> least half the time it would be my job to clean those too.
> some jobs on the farm *are* disgusting, but none should be
> gender specific.
>
>
>>But, really, saying there should be a _law_against paying
>>people to do things you're not willing to do yourself?
>>Think of all the elderly people who would languish because
>>their families are not willing to care for them, yet are
>>willing to pay someone to do it. And speaking of the
>>elderly, I have visions of little old ladies riding around
>>on the backs of garbage trucks. The mind boggles.
>
>
> Jim gets a bit carried away with the rhetoric sometimes. after
> all, in most rural areas you *do* have to pay someone to haul
> off your non-recyclable trash. you can't burn it or bury it as
> our ancestors did.
> also, Jim has a "thing" against health care (god provides,
> you know), so he most likely isn't considering the fact that
> health care allows people to become elderly & well, elderly
> rural residents frequently do NOT want to go live in some city
> managed care facility. they want to die at home.
>
> lee


and whatever you do, DO NOT mention street lights in a favorable light...

[Amy Blankenship]

"enigma" <***@evil.net> wrote in message
news:***@199.125.85.9...
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
> in news:0N4ni.143$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
>> I was more talking about cleaning the sewers, actually,
>> which you snipped. I actually already have an appointment
>> with the headsman to help me learn to humanely recycle my
>> chickens. I do in fact believe I should take
>> responsibility for my food.
>
> ah, ok. i'm the one that digs up the septic tank every 3 years
> for the sewage pumper, too. it just happens that i know where
> the openings are, so it's become my job.
> i imagine if we had an outhouse or a composting toilet, at
> least half the time it would be my job to clean those too.
> some jobs on the farm *are* disgusting, but none should be
> gender specific.

So you think that EVERYONE, regardless of age or physical fitness for the
job, should be required to do every job that has to be done for them to live
in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed? Weave their on fabric,
for instance? Forging their own car parts?

>> But, really, saying there should be a _law_against paying
>> people to do things you're not willing to do yourself?
>> Think of all the elderly people who would languish because
>> their families are not willing to care for them, yet are
>> willing to pay someone to do it. And speaking of the
>> elderly, I have visions of little old ladies riding around
>> on the backs of garbage trucks. The mind boggles.
>
> Jim gets a bit carried away with the rhetoric sometimes. after
> all, in most rural areas you *do* have to pay someone to haul
> off your non-recyclable trash. you can't burn it or bury it as
> our ancestors did.

Yes, I know. That is why we have goats.

> also, Jim has a "thing" against health care (god provides,
> you know), so he most likely isn't considering the fact that
> health care allows people to become elderly & well, elderly
> rural residents frequently do NOT want to go live in some city
> managed care facility. they want to die at home.

We're not talking about rural residents. We're talking about everybody.

[Pat]

On Jul 16, 1:47 pm, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 12:23 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >You remain a gun nut, I would not remain in such a dangerous area if
> > >you have to worry about home invaders AND wild dogs. I would not live
> > >in such a dangerous area, but like most gun nuts your income does not
> > >permit you to move to a safer area, so you remain wedded to your loved
> > >guns.
>
> > Actually, those incidents all occurred *before* I moved.
>
> > >I should see a therapist???
>
> > Yes, you should, because of your fixation on guns as sexual objects.
>
> > >Believe me, where I live home invasions of occupied dwellings are very
> > >unheard of
>
> > Liar. Your IP address shows Newark NJ USA.
>
> > >and if we need our local police they are there in 3-4
> > >minutes.
>
> > How long does it take for a housebreaker to shoot you?
>
> > >Even B & E's of homes when the occupants are away are
> > >realtively rare.
>
> > In Newark NJ? You're a liar.
>
> And that means I live there???? Please for a variety of reasons get
> your head out of your arse. I told you what the police and crime are
> like where I do live. As I told you, I would not live in a dangerous
> place. I don't go to Paradise on the Passaic very often, hardly at
> all.
>
> There are 565 other municipalities in NJ. I live in Union County.
>
> I will explain something to you. This will go 1000 miles over your gun
> loving head, but no matter. NJ has a very tough law re: possessing
> firearms. Are you with me so far?
>
> It is NOT impossible to obtain a firearm, but it makes ot more
> difficult and what you will find even more difficult to comprehend,
> more expensive. And the gun laws in towns like mine are very strictly
> enforced.
>
> IOW if some one suspicious gets stopped in a veh for a traffic offense
> in my town and a search is undertaken and a gun is found, the perp IS
> going to jail. If he has a felony conviction, he will be there for a
> very long time on a very high bail.
>
> That is what a police PRESENCE is for.
>
> Look up the crime rates in some of the towns in Union County.
>
> I will give you a hint, I DO NOT live in Elizabeth, Linden, Rahway, or
> Plainfield.
>
>
>
> > >For the thrid time, what I said your loved guns will likely be used
> > >for, remains very likely.
>
> > >Go clean you guns (pet) one more time. I am sure it is so enjoyable.
>
> > You really need to see a therapist for help with your sexual fixations.
>
> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a professional police
> dept that has a PRESENCE, and am willing to pay for one.
>
> But I am willing to bet you are cleaning one or more of your guns all
> day long.
>
> And you love you guns more then you love your family.
>
> And you say I need therapy. As I said, please get you head out of
> your arse.
>
> Randy
>
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> > It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
>
> Naah, throw yourself holding all of your beloved guns into the harbor.

I think you both are a bit extreme.

There are very, very many people who own guns for recreational
purposes that you'd never know own a gun. They use the for target
practice and hunting but I doubt if they'd ever consider using them
for self-defense or such. They, like others, believe that the best
course of action is to call 911. They want to cops to handle it and
to keep out of harms way.

This group of people keep their guns appropriately locks up and
secured in locations away from children, strangers, and nosy
neighbors.

This the the VAST majority of owners. It is the person sitting across
the room from you, the person at church with you, the person you see
at the club. It is also the person who seldom gets into a gun debate.

The VAST majority of non-gun-owners are quite similar. They don't own
a gun because they don't need.want one, but they aren't going to go
off the handle and try to prevent someone else from owning one. They
recognize that the US is a big country and their is a significant
difference between people in NY or CA or TX or OK when it comes to
guns. Different strokes for different folks.

Finally, I believe almost everyone is in agreement -- no matter what
side of the debate that they are on -- the certain folks should not be
allowed to own/possess guns: people with a history of violence,
felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill, etc.

Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
going to get you anywhere.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:

>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>going to get you anywhere.

Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
from predators makes me a zealot.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Pat]

On Jul 16, 2:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> >Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
> >especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
> >going to get you anywhere.
>
> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
> from predators makes me a zealot.
>

Wishing to, doesn't make you a zealot. Engaging in non-winnable
conversations with someone you have no chance of converting, while the
rhetoric continues to escalate ... that makes you a zealot. Most
people would have walked away from the conversation a long time ago.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 2:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>
>> >Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>> >especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>> >going to get you anywhere.
>>
>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>>
>Wishing to, doesn't make you a zealot. Engaging in non-winnable
>conversations with someone you have no chance of converting, while the
>rhetoric continues to escalate ... that makes you a zealot.

Ahhh. Gotcha. Sorry.

>Most people would have walked away from the conversation a long time ago.

That's good advice; I think I'll take it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Ann]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>going to get you anywhere.
>
> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
> from predators makes me a zealot.

It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
protecting your family against home invasion?

[AL]

Ann wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>
>>In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>
>>Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
>>from predators makes me a zealot.
>
>
> It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
> protecting your family against home invasion?
>



A carry permit extends the protection beyond the confines of the home.

Illinois could learn a LOT from its neighbors.

AL

[Ann]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:08:16 -0500, AL wrote:

> Ann wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>
>>>Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
>>>from predators makes me a zealot.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>> protecting your family against home invasion?

> A carry permit extends the protection beyond the confines of the home.

That "stretch" assumes a handgun is necessary (or even the best choice)
for protection against home invasion.

>
> Illinois could learn a LOT from its neighbors.
>
> AL

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:08:16 -0500, AL wrote:
>
>> Ann wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

>>>>In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:

>>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
>>>>from predators makes me a zealot.
>>>
>>> It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>>> protecting your family against home invasion?
>
>> A carry permit extends the protection beyond the confines of the home.
>
>That "stretch" assumes a handgun is necessary (or even the best choice)
>for protection against home invasion.

It assumes nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary -- it assumes that a
handgun is the best choice for protection when one is *not* at home. It may or
may not be; but due to ease of portability it's certainly a better choice than
a shotgun, rifle, longbow, or spear.

And again -- the discussion was about personal protection in general. You're
the only one who's talking about only home invasions.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[george conklin]

"Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:vdUmi.26612$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...

> It assumes nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary -- it assumes that a
> handgun is the best choice for protection when one is *not* at home. It
> may or
> may not be; but due to ease of portability it's certainly a better choice
> than
> a shotgun, rifle, longbow, or spear.


What would be the best gun for protection against a home invasion?

[enigma]

"george conklin" <***@nxu.edu> wrote in
news:eyUmi.8074$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
> news:vdUmi.26612$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> It assumes nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary -- it
>> assumes that a handgun is the best choice for protection
>> when one is *not* at home. It may or
>> may not be; but due to ease of portability it's certainly
>> a better choice than
>> a shotgun, rifle, longbow, or spear.
>
>
> What would be the best gun for protection against a home
> invasion?

one you know how to use, even under pressure
lee

[Jim]

enigma wrote:

> george conklin wrote:
> >
> >
> > What would be the best gun for protection against a home
> > invasion?
>
> one you know how to use, even under pressure
> lee

damn good answer...

Lee, you really are a nice small package of logic.
good read too.

ps: try sudsy ammonia for making homemade stain from
walnuts and pecans.

[enigma]

Jim <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:***@bellsouth.net:

> enigma wrote:
>
>> george conklin wrote:
>> >
>> > What would be the best gun for protection against a home
>> > invasion?
>>
>> one you know how to use, even under pressure
>
> damn good answer...

common sense apparently isn't very common :p

> Lee, you really are a nice small package of logic.
> good read too.

thanks Jim.
how are the soybeans doing this year? what else do you grow?

> ps: try sudsy ammonia for making homemade stain from
> walnuts and pecans.

does the sudsy ammonia work better than plain? i wonder if it
really extracts more of the stain... i'll try it on fabric
this year to compare (i dyed a skein of wool & several yards
of cotton & linen last fall using hot water).
are there varieties of pecan that grow in zone 5b? i love
pecans...
lee

[Doug Miller]

In article <eyUmi.8074$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "george conklin" <***@nxu.edu> wrote:

>What would be the best gun for protection against a home invasion?

Best gun? Or best *legal* gun?

Best gun, period, IMO is probably a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, but that's not
legal anywhere in the U.S. Handguns aren't legal everywhere either, but where
they are, I think the weapon of choice would be a medium-frame semi-automatic
handgun.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>
>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>
>It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>protecting your family against home invasion?
>
What, you think home is the only place we'd be at risk from armed thugs?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Ann]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:17 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
>> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>
>>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
>>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>>
>>It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>>protecting your family against home invasion?
>>
> What, you think home is the only place we'd be at risk from armed thugs?

The discussion was about home invasions.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:17 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net>
> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
>>> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my
> family
>>>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>>>
>>>It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>>>protecting your family against home invasion?
>>>
>> What, you think home is the only place we'd be at risk from armed thugs?
>
>The discussion was about home invasions.
>
No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Ann]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:35:01 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:17 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
>>>> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my
>> family
>>>>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>>>>protecting your family against home invasion?
>>>>
>>> What, you think home is the only place we'd be at risk from armed thugs?
>>
>>The discussion was about home invasions.
>>
> No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.

Not the particular sub-thread. And you do refer to protecting your
family, which implies a situation where you are all together. That said,
it's not worth arguing about. We were overdue for a gun thread. <g>

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:35:01 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <***@epix.net>, Ann <***@epix.net>
> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:17 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <***@epix.net>, Ann
> <***@epix.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
>>>>> <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my
>>> family
>>>>>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>>>>>protecting your family against home invasion?
>>>>>
>>>> What, you think home is the only place we'd be at risk from armed thugs?
>>>
>>>The discussion was about home invasions.
>>>
>> No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.
>
>Not the particular sub-thread.

Yes, exactly this particular sub-thread, until *you* began insisting it was
only about home invasions.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Ann]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:35:35 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
> Ann
>>Doug Miller
>>> Ann
>>>>Doug Miller
>>>>> Ann
>>>>>>Doug Miller
>>>>>>> Pat

>>>>>>>>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>>>>>>>>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>>>>>>>>going to get you anywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and
>>>>>>> my
>>>> family
>>>>>>> from predators makes me a zealot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do
>>>>>>with protecting your family against home invasion?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What, you think home is the only place we'd be at risk from armed
>>>>> thugs?
>>>>
>>>>The discussion was about home invasions.
>>>>
>>> No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.
>>
>>Not the particular sub-thread.
>
> Yes, exactly this particular sub-thread, until *you* began insisting it
> was only about home invasions.

I took your emphasis to be protecting ones family against home invasion:
"Why anyone would voluntarily render himself and his family defenseless
passes my understanding. But that's your choice. I just hope that your
family doesn't have to some day bear the consequences of your foolish
cowardice."

Agreed though that Pat's post was general. So if you want to say that was
the start of a new sub-thread, then it is general.

[AL]

Ann

> Doug Miller

>>Ann

>>>Doug Miller

>>>>Ann

>>>>>The discussion was about home invasions.

>>>>No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.

>>>Not the particular sub-thread.

>>Yes, exactly this particular sub-thread, until *you* began insisting it
>>was only about home invasions.


> I took your emphasis to be protecting ones family against home invasion:
> "Why anyone would voluntarily render himself and his family defenseless
> passes my understanding. But that's your choice. I just hope that your
> family doesn't have to some day bear the consequences of your foolish
> cowardice."




That didn't exactly support your assumption - there was no mention of
home invasion.


AL

[Ann]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:53:04 -0500, AL wrote:
> Ann
>> Doug Miller
>>>Ann
>>>>Doug Miller
>>>>>Ann
>
>>>>>>The discussion was about home invasions.
>
>>>>>No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.
>
>>>>Not the particular sub-thread.
>
>>>Yes, exactly this particular sub-thread, until *you* began insisting it
>>>was only about home invasions.
>
>
>> I took your emphasis to be protecting ones family against home
>> invasion: "Why anyone would voluntarily render himself and his family
>> defenseless passes my understanding. But that's your choice. I just
>> hope that your family doesn't have to some day bear the consequences of
>> your foolish cowardice."
>
> That didn't exactly support your assumption - there was no mention of
> home invasion.

So, you interpret it that he was referring to church, the supermarket, or
some other situation where the family was gathered together, For
clarification, from his previous post in that exchange:

[Yepper, oh Mister Gun Nut, like your wife or your kids, or your neighbor,
or his kids, or your kids can take one of your hundreds of guns to school
and shoot other kids or even their teachers, or principals.]

"No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my house
in the middle of the night.

Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless against
armed thugs?"

[AL]

Ann wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:53:04 -0500, AL wrote:
>
>>Ann
>>
>>>Doug Miller
>>>
>>>>Ann
>>>>
>>>>>Doug Miller
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ann
>>
>>>>>>>The discussion was about home invasions.
>>
>>>>>>No, actually, the discussion was about personal protection generally.
>>
>>>>>Not the particular sub-thread.
>>
>>>>Yes, exactly this particular sub-thread, until *you* began insisting it
>>>>was only about home invasions.
>>
>>
>>>I took your emphasis to be protecting ones family against home
>>>invasion: "Why anyone would voluntarily render himself and his family
>>>defenseless passes my understanding. But that's your choice. I just
>>>hope that your family doesn't have to some day bear the consequences of
>>>your foolish cowardice."
>>
>>That didn't exactly support your assumption - there was no mention of
>>home invasion.
>
>
> So, you interpret it that he was referring to church, the supermarket, or
> some other situation where the family was gathered together[...]


Pretty much.

[Pat]

On Jul 16, 5:48 pm, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> >>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
> >>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
> >>going to get you anywhere.
>
> > Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my family
> > from predators makes me a zealot.
>
> It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
> protecting your family against home invasion?

Nothing. A pistol has nothing to do with protection against a home
invasion. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

I sleep on the 2nd floor. My guns are locked up, down in the
basement. That;s where they are and that's where they are supposed to
be. Guns are not really a good bet for home invasion. A phone, an
air horn and a baseball bat are all better.

[AL]

Pat wrote:

> A pistol has nothing to do with protection against a home
> invasion. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
>
> I sleep on the 2nd floor. My guns are locked up, down in the
> basement. That;s where they are and that's where they are supposed to
> be. Guns are not really a good bet for home invasion. A phone, an
> air horn and a baseball bat are all better.


And the intruder laughs "what kind of idiot brings a baseball bat to a
gun fight?"

[NapalmHeart]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:***@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 5:48 pm, Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:24 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>> > In article <***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat
>> > <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>
>> >>Both of you are zealots and will not change anyone's mind --
>> >>especially each other. All of your "yelling and screaming" is not
>> >>going to get you anywhere.
>>
>> > Please explain how wishing to have the means to protect myself and my
>> > family
>> > from predators makes me a zealot.
>>
>> It doesn't. But what does a permit to carry a handgun have to do with
>> protecting your family against home invasion?
>
> Nothing. A pistol has nothing to do with protection against a home
> invasion. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
>
> I sleep on the 2nd floor. My guns are locked up, down in the
> basement. That;s where they are and that's where they are supposed to
> be. Guns are not really a good bet for home invasion. A phone, an
> air horn and a baseball bat are all better.
>
>
I prefer that my baseball bats be at least .40 caliber and that they are
shaped like a pistol.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>Nothing. A pistol has nothing to do with protection against a home
>invasion. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

??

>I sleep on the 2nd floor. My guns are locked up, down in the
>basement. That;s where they are and that's where they are supposed to
>be. Guns are not really a good bet for home invasion. A phone, an
>air horn and a baseball bat are all better.

Sure, if the guy invading your home is unarmed, or armed only with a knife. If
he's carrying a gun, and you have a ball bat, who do you think is going to win
that one? Oh, wait, I forgot about the air horn. Yeah, that'll make a
difference, won't it?

A much more sensible plan, given that you sleep on the 2nd floor, is to keep
your guns on the 2nd floor, too. Then if someone breaks into your home at
night, you arm yourself, call the cops -- in that order -- and stay on the 2nd
floor where you're safe. As long as the guy stays downstairs, your homeowner's
insurance will make you whole for whatever mischief he creates. If he tries to
come upstairs, where you and your family are, that will be the last mistake he
ever makes.

Bottom line: you have insurance to protect your *things*. But if you're
depending on the police to protect your *family* ... I sincerely hope their
ability to do so is never tested.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[enigma]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

> I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a
> professional police dept that has a PRESENCE, and am
> willing to pay for one.

good for you, city boy.
some of us much prefer to live in *rural* areas & we aren't
afraid of guns.

> But I am willing to bet you are cleaning one or more of
> your guns all day long.

don't be silly. you clean the guns after they are used. us
rural folks have many more important things to be doing
besides cleaning guns... like raising the food you city
dimwits eat.
>
> And you love you guns more then you love your family.

a gun is a tool. no more. no less.

> And you say I need therapy. As I said, please get you head
> out of your arse.

yes, you do seem to need therapy. you are fixated on guns as
a sexual object. bet you drive a honking big SUV too, with
NASCAR crap on the rear window.
lee

[Jim]

enigma wrote:

> pigsty the jerseyite wrote:
>
> > I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a
> > professional police dept that has a PRESENCE, and am
> > willing to pay for one.
>
> good for you, city boy.
> some of us much prefer to live in *rural* areas & we aren't
> afraid of guns.
>
> > But I am willing to bet you are cleaning one or more of
> > your guns all day long.
>
> don't be silly. you clean the guns after they are used. us
> rural folks have many more important things to be doing
> besides cleaning guns... like raising the food you city
> dimwits eat.
> >
> > And you love you guns more then you love your family.
>
> a gun is a tool. no more. no less.
>
> > And you say I need therapy. As I said, please get you head
> > out of your arse.
>
> yes, you do seem to need therapy. you are fixated on guns as
> a sexual object. bet you drive a honking big SUV too, with
> NASCAR crap on the rear window.
> lee

ROCK my World little Country Girl!!!!

give 'em hell Lee <g>

damn that was good to me....

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 5:42 pm, enigma <***@evil.net> wrote:
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote innews:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I don't own guns, I will not own guns. I prefer a
> > professional police dept that has a PRESENCE, and am
> > willing to pay for one.
>
> good for you, city boy.
> some of us much prefer to live in *rural* areas & we aren't
> afraid of guns.
>
> > But I am willing to bet you are cleaning one or more of
> > your guns all day long.
>
> don't be silly. you clean the guns after they are used. us
> rural folks have many more important things to be doing
> besides cleaning guns... like raising the food you city
> dimwits eat.
>
>
>
> > And you love you guns more then you love your family.
>
> a gun is a tool. no more. no less.
>
> > And you say I need therapy. As I said, please get you head
> > out of your arse.
>
> yes, you do seem to need therapy. you are fixated on guns as
> a sexual object. bet you drive a honking big SUV too, with
> NASCAR crap on the rear window.
> lee

I can guarantee you the food you are raising is not for me or any one
around me.

You might like to think so, but that is not the way it works.

Again, get your head out of your arse.

Most of the food sold in the super markets is imported. What little
is grown in the US is grown on factory farms owned by agri business.
The little you grow probably goes to some farmers mkt 20 or so miles
away from where you live.

Please don't spew any more crapola about how wonderful rural life is.
You can have it, and enjoy milking your cows.


As for dimwits, dimwit, you have a much higher illiteracy rate then we
do. You are living proof of that.

You are growing my food. I doubt it.

Randy

[enigma]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> I can guarantee you the food you are raising is not for me
> or any one around me.

goodness, no. i hope you either starve to death or die from
the contaminated cheap imports you eat.
i raise food for my family & for those who know good food.
you obviously don't fit either catagory.

> Most of the food sold in the super markets is imported.
> What little is grown in the US is grown on factory farms
> owned by agri business. The little you grow probably goes
> to some farmers mkt 20 or so miles away from where you
> live.

you might check out slow food, or eating within 100 miles,
but i doubt you'd either understand or be interested. you
don't seem particularly bright. i suppose you could blame your
parental units for feeding you all that HFCS & prepackaged
crap food. rots the brain, that stuff.

> Please don't spew any more crapola about how wonderful
> rural life is. You can have it, and enjoy milking your
> cows.

i don't have any milk cows right now. i do enjoy milking my
goats though, and collecting eggs from my hens.

> As for dimwits, dimwit, you have a much higher illiteracy
> rate then we do. You are living proof of that.

really? i'm hyperlexic, with an IQ of 180. what about you?

> You are growing my food. I doubt it.

thankfully, i am not. ungrateful fat slobs like you don't
deserve real food.
lee

[NapalmHeart]

"enigma" <***@evil.net> wrote in message
news:***@199.125.85.9...
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I can guarantee you the food you are raising is not for me
>> or any one around me.
>
> goodness, no. i hope you either starve to death or die from
> the contaminated cheap imports you eat.
> i raise food for my family & for those who know good food.
> you obviously don't fit either catagory.
>
>> Most of the food sold in the super markets is imported.
>> What little is grown in the US is grown on factory farms
>> owned by agri business. The little you grow probably goes
>> to some farmers mkt 20 or so miles away from where you
>> live.
>
> you might check out slow food, or eating within 100 miles,
> but i doubt you'd either understand or be interested. you
> don't seem particularly bright. i suppose you could blame your
> parental units for feeding you all that HFCS & prepackaged
> crap food. rots the brain, that stuff.
>
>> Please don't spew any more crapola about how wonderful
>> rural life is. You can have it, and enjoy milking your
>> cows.
>
> i don't have any milk cows right now. i do enjoy milking my
> goats though, and collecting eggs from my hens.
>
>> As for dimwits, dimwit, you have a much higher illiteracy
>> rate then we do. You are living proof of that.
>
> really? i'm hyperlexic, with an IQ of 180. what about you?
>
>> You are growing my food. I doubt it.
>
> thankfully, i am not. ungrateful fat slobs like you don't
> deserve real food.
> lee

Attitudes like his are why I prefer to live in a more rural setting.

Ken

[enigma]

"NapalmHeart" <***@iserv.net> wrote in
news:***@corp.supernews.com:
>
> Attitudes like his are why I prefer to live in a more rural
> setting.

as i get older, i get less tolerant of clueless people.

you haven't posted in a while. have you been ok? i missed seeing
you around.
lee

[Stephen Sprunk]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my
>> house in the middle of the night.
>>
>> Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless
>> against armed thugs?
>
> Oh, yeah, you are so defenseless. Oh my gawd, it just takes
> the police forever to get there.

Depending on where you live, yes it can. Note that, according to SCOTUS,
the police aren't required to respond at all, just collect taxes. That
ruling was in response to a case where several women were held in their home
and repeatedly raped and sodomized for _days_; one of them managed to call
911, and the police refused to help them. Of course, that was in DC, where
it's illegal for women to defend themselves against predators.

> And there are so very many breakins of occupied dwellings,
> my gawd we all should be armed to the teeth just for that.

"Home invasion" burglaries are the fastest-growing type of violent crime.
That way the perps can capture (or kill) the residents who're already home
instead of breaking into a hoise and having to worry about being surprised
by the residents returning.

> And we should fire all of the cops and sheriff's deps as we no
> longer need them.

Police investigate crimes, not prevent them.

> I am going to tell you what the odds are. Those guns you love
> so much will in all likelyhood NEVER be used for protection.
> But what they will be used for is what I listed in my first post to
> you.

Spree killings are extremely rare. OTOH, the FBI reports that two _million_
crimes per year are prevented by private guns. (The NRA claims 4M; Handgun
Control Inc. concedes 1M...)

It's fooling to think what you see on TV is representative of real life.
Things make it onto the "news" precisely because they don't happen often.
Just compare the reporting of the one or two plane crashes per year that
kill a few dozen to a few hundred people vs. the hundred or so car crashes
_per day_ that kill tens of thousands of people per year. You're far more
likely to die in your car on the way to or from an airport, but thanks to
the media they think they're safe on the roads yet fear for their lives on
planes...

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 14, 6:39 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" <***@sprunk.org> wrote:
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> No, actually, I was thinking of someone who tries to break into my
> >> house in the middle of the night.
>
> >> Or would you prefer that I, my wife, and my kids, be defenseless
> >> against armed thugs?
>
> > Oh, yeah, you are so defenseless. Oh my gawd, it just takes
> > the police forever to get there.
>
> Depending on where you live, yes it can. Note that, according to SCOTUS,
> the police aren't required to respond at all, just collect taxes. That
> ruling was in response to a case where several women were held in their home
> and repeatedly raped and sodomized for _days_; one of them managed to call
> 911, and the police refused to help them. Of course, that was in DC, where
> it's illegal for women to defend themselves against predators.
>
> > And there are so very many breakins of occupied dwellings,
> > my gawd we all should be armed to the teeth just for that.
>
> "Home invasion" burglaries are the fastest-growing type of violent crime.
> That way the perps can capture (or kill) the residents who're already home
> instead of breaking into a hoise and having to worry about being surprised
> by the residents returning.
>
> > And we should fire all of the cops and sheriff's deps as we no
> > longer need them.
>
> Police investigate crimes, not prevent them.
>
> > I am going to tell you what the odds are. Those guns you love
> > so much will in all likelyhood NEVER be used for protection.
> > But what they will be used for is what I listed in my first post to
> > you.
>
> Spree killings are extremely rare. OTOH, the FBI reports that two _million_
> crimes per year are prevented by private guns. (The NRA claims 4M; Handgun
> Control Inc. concedes 1M...)
>
> It's fooling to think what you see on TV is representative of real life.
> Things make it onto the "news" precisely because they don't happen often.
> Just compare the reporting of the one or two plane crashes per year that
> kill a few dozen to a few hundred people vs. the hundred or so car crashes
> _per day_ that kill tens of thousands of people per year. You're far more
> likely to die in your car on the way to or from an airport, but thanks to
> the media they think they're safe on the roads yet fear for their lives on
> planes...
>


Stephen, if police response time in your area is so very poor, why
not spend some money (taxes) to improve it? Don't you think there
would be a benefit? Quicker police response helps in other areas
besides responding to crime. What if the above gun nut has a medical
emergency? IS it better the response time, and his hated taxes are
kept low and a person having a heart attack or some other med
emergency dies while said gun nut stands over him holding his beloved
guns.

Police PRESENCE prevents crime. Police repsonse time saves lives.

But said gun nut would rather have low, or non existant taxes so he
can crow about how many lives are saved by his loved guns.

Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
access to firearms.


But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.

Randy

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
ns.
>
>Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
>access to firearms.

A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree killings
occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the concealed
carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not stupid;
generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who are
unable to resist.

>But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
>many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.

The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this meant
that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend themselves when an
armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>Randy
>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> ns.
>
>
>
> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
> >access to firearms.
>
> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree killings
> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the concealed
> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not stupid;
> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who are
> unable to resist.
>
> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>
> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this meant
> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend themselves when an
> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>

Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
then restrict easy access to firearms.

And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
police presence.


You give yourself away as a gun lover.

You are probably cleaning one or more of your beloved guns as we
speak, and petting it.

I hope no one ever shoots you before you can make like Marshall
Dillon.

Then again, maybe I do, one less gun lover.







> >Randy
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Better yet, you jump in the harbor holding all of your beloved guns
and take the rest of the gun loving nuts holding their beloved guns
with you.

[Doug Miller]

In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ns.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
>> >access to firearms.
>>
>> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree killings
>> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the
> concealed
>> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not stupid;
>> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
>> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who are
>> unable to resist.
>>
>> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
>> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>>
>> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
>> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this meant
>> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend themselves when
> an
>> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>>
>
>Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
>then restrict easy access to firearms.

Helloooooooo, anybody home? It was against the law for Cho to bring those guns
on campus -- the law worked real well, didn't it?
>
>And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
>police presence.

Oh, so we should have the police everywhere?
>
>
>You give yourself away as a gun lover.

You give yourself away as a naive fool.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:R8Pmi.10742$***@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
>>> >access to firearms.
>>>
>>> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree
>>> killings
>>> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the
>> concealed
>>> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not stupid;
>>> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
>>> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who
>>> are
>>> unable to resist.
>>>
>>> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
>>> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>>>
>>> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
>>> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this
>>> meant
>>> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend themselves
>>> when
>> an
>>> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>>>
>>
>>Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
>>then restrict easy access to firearms.
>
> Helloooooooo, anybody home? It was against the law for Cho to bring those
> guns
> on campus -- the law worked real well, didn't it?
>>
>>And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
>>police presence.
>
> Oh, so we should have the police everywhere?
>>
>>
>>You give yourself away as a gun lover.
>
> You give yourself away as a naive fool.

Just thought I'd point out that in the UK gun laws are way stricter than
they are here and you almost never hear of firearms deaths there.
Apparently when guns actually are difficult to get, you don't need to have a
gun to protect yourself from the other people who found them easy to get, as
well.

Just a thought;

Amy

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 3:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:R8Pmi.10742$***@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >>> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ns.
>
> >>> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
> >>> >access to firearms.
>
> >>> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree
> >>> killings
> >>> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the
> >> concealed
> >>> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not stupid;
> >>> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
> >>> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who
> >>> are
> >>> unable to resist.
>
> >>> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
> >>> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>
> >>> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
> >>> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this
> >>> meant
> >>> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend themselves
> >>> when
> >> an
> >>> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>
> >>Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
> >>then restrict easy access to firearms.
>
> > Helloooooooo, anybody home? It was against the law for Cho to bring those
> > guns
> > on campus -- the law worked real well, didn't it?
>
> >>And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
> >>police presence.
>
> > Oh, so we should have the police everywhere?
>
> >>You give yourself away as a gun lover.
>
> > You give yourself away as a naive fool.
>
> Just thought I'd point out that in the UK gun laws are way stricter than
> they are here and you almost never hear of firearms deaths there.
> Apparently when guns actually are difficult to get, you don't need to have a
> gun to protect yourself from the other people who found them easy to get, as
> well.
>
> Just a thought;
>
> Amy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Amy, every word I said about NJ is true. The gun nuts just cannot
comprehend it.
Make it more difficult to obtain firearms, and you make any place
safer.

Easy access to firearms and you get a VT massacre.

Randy

[T. Rex]

In article <***@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
***@gmail.com says...
>
> Amy, every word I said about NJ is true. The gun nuts just cannot comprehend it.

You sure have a hard time understanding the facts. Gun crime is highest
in the areas with the most restrictive gun laws. Liberal idiots like you
can't comprehend it, but it's true anyway.

> Make it more difficult to obtain firearms, and you make any place safer.

Dumbass! You make it more dangerous! The criminal element will always
find a way to be armed. Why do you want to disarm law-abiding citizens?
>
> Easy access to firearms and you get a VT massacre.

Wrong again, idiot. Almost every mass killing in the US in the last
fifty years has happened where guns were restricted.

[george conklin]

"T. Rex" <***@saurus.com> wrote in message
news:***@news.ind.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <***@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> ***@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Amy, every word I said about NJ is true. The gun nuts just cannot
>> comprehend it.
>
> You sure have a hard time understanding the facts. Gun crime is highest
> in the areas with the most restrictive gun laws. Liberal idiots like you
> can't comprehend it, but it's true anyway.
>
>> Make it more difficult to obtain firearms, and you make any place safer.
>
> Dumbass! You make it more dangerous! The criminal element will always
> find a way to be armed. Why do you want to disarm law-abiding citizens?
>>
>> Easy access to firearms and you get a VT massacre.
>
> Wrong again, idiot. Almost every mass killing in the US in the last
> fifty years has happened where guns were restricted.

I understand there are 240 million guns in the USA now. Even if they did
not sell one more, the existing weapons are going to be here forever.

[Amy Blankenship]

"T. Rex" <***@saurus.com> wrote in message
news:***@news.ind.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <***@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> ***@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Amy, every word I said about NJ is true. The gun nuts just cannot
>> comprehend it.
>
> You sure have a hard time understanding the facts. Gun crime is highest
> in the areas with the most restrictive gun laws. Liberal idiots like you
> can't comprehend it, but it's true anyway.
>
>> Make it more difficult to obtain firearms, and you make any place safer.
>
> Dumbass! You make it more dangerous! The criminal element will always
> find a way to be armed. Why do you want to disarm law-abiding citizens?
>>
>> Easy access to firearms and you get a VT massacre.
>
> Wrong again, idiot. Almost every mass killing in the US in the last
> fifty years has happened where guns were restricted.

And compared to other countries with more restrictive gun laws...

[Pat]

On Jul 16, 3:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:R8Pmi.10742$***@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >>> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ns.
>
> >>> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
> >>> >access to firearms.
>
> >>> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree
> >>> killings
> >>> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the
> >> concealed
> >>> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not stupid;
> >>> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
> >>> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who
> >>> are
> >>> unable to resist.
>
> >>> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
> >>> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>
> >>> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
> >>> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this
> >>> meant
> >>> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend themselves
> >>> when
> >> an
> >>> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>
> >>Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
> >>then restrict easy access to firearms.
>
> > Helloooooooo, anybody home? It was against the law for Cho to bring those
> > guns
> > on campus -- the law worked real well, didn't it?
>
> >>And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
> >>police presence.
>
> > Oh, so we should have the police everywhere?
>
> >>You give yourself away as a gun lover.
>
> > You give yourself away as a naive fool.
>
> Just thought I'd point out that in the UK gun laws are way stricter than
> they are here and you almost never hear of firearms deaths there.
> Apparently when guns actually are difficult to get, you don't need to have a
> gun to protect yourself from the other people who found them easy to get, as
> well.
>
> Just a thought;
>
> Amy

Yeah, Amy, they have car bombs instead. If someone is going to do
something, they'll figure out a way to do it. Guns. Passenger jets.
Car bombs. Diseases in the subway. Where there's a will, there's a
way. You can't ban everything.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 3:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:R8Pmi.10742$***@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >>> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> ns.
>>
>> >>> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
>> >>> >access to firearms.
>>
>> >>> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree
>> >>> killings
>> >>> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the
>> >> concealed
>> >>> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not
>> >>> stupid;
>> >>> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
>> >>> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who
>> >>> are
>> >>> unable to resist.
>>
>> >>> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
>> >>> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>>
>> >>> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
>> >>> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this
>> >>> meant
>> >>> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend
>> >>> themselves
>> >>> when
>> >> an
>> >>> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>>
>> >>Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
>> >>then restrict easy access to firearms.
>>
>> > Helloooooooo, anybody home? It was against the law for Cho to bring
>> > those
>> > guns
>> > on campus -- the law worked real well, didn't it?
>>
>> >>And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
>> >>police presence.
>>
>> > Oh, so we should have the police everywhere?
>>
>> >>You give yourself away as a gun lover.
>>
>> > You give yourself away as a naive fool.
>>
>> Just thought I'd point out that in the UK gun laws are way stricter than
>> they are here and you almost never hear of firearms deaths there.
>> Apparently when guns actually are difficult to get, you don't need to
>> have a
>> gun to protect yourself from the other people who found them easy to get,
>> as
>> well.
>>
>> Just a thought;
>>
>> Amy
>
> Yeah, Amy, they have car bombs instead. If someone is going to do
> something, they'll figure out a way to do it. Guns. Passenger jets.
> Car bombs. Diseases in the subway. Where there's a will, there's a
> way. You can't ban everything.

Car bombs are relatively uncommon, so they make the news. Unlike gun
deaths.

[Pat]

On Jul 16, 5:17 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 3:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >> "Doug Miller" <***@milmac.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:R8Pmi.10742$***@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> > In article <***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, ***@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >>> In article <***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> ns.
>
> >> >>> >Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely easy
> >> >>> >access to firearms.
>
> >> >>> A commonly repeated falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless. Spree
> >> >>> killings
> >> >>> occur almost exclusively in areas in which legislation prohibits the
> >> >> concealed
> >> >>> carrying of firearms. Spree killers are crazy, but they're not
> >> >>> stupid;
> >> >>> generally, they avoid places where they might get shot, and instead
> >> >>> concentrate their activities in areas with large pools of victims who
> >> >>> are
> >> >>> unable to resist.
>
> >> >>> >But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have way too
> >> >>> >many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.
>
> >> >>> The Virginia Tech shootings are a perfect example. The campus was, by
> >> >>> legislative act, designated as a "gun-free zone." Unfortunately this
> >> >>> meant
> >> >>> that the law-abiding citizens there were not able to defend
> >> >>> themselves
> >> >>> when
> >> >> an
> >> >>> armed law-BREAKER arrived and began shooting.
>
> >> >>Righto, better to have a free fire exercise in a classroom environment
> >> >>then restrict easy access to firearms.
>
> >> > Helloooooooo, anybody home? It was against the law for Cho to bring
> >> > those
> >> > guns
> >> > on campus -- the law worked real well, didn't it?
>
> >> >>And definately better to have such a free fire excercise then having a
> >> >>police presence.
>
> >> > Oh, so we should have the police everywhere?
>
> >> >>You give yourself away as a gun lover.
>
> >> > You give yourself away as a naive fool.
>
> >> Just thought I'd point out that in the UK gun laws are way stricter than
> >> they are here and you almost never hear of firearms deaths there.
> >> Apparently when guns actually are difficult to get, you don't need to
> >> have a
> >> gun to protect yourself from the other people who found them easy to get,
> >> as
> >> well.
>
> >> Just a thought;
>
> >> Amy
>
> > Yeah, Amy, they have car bombs instead. If someone is going to do
> > something, they'll figure out a way to do it. Guns. Passenger jets.
> > Car bombs. Diseases in the subway. Where there's a will, there's a
> > way. You can't ban everything.
>
> Car bombs are relatively uncommon, so they make the news. Unlike gun
> deaths.

Around here, gun deaths are quite rare but all killings still make the
news.

The saddest -- even sadder than what happened here -- were the 5 kids
killed outside of Rochester when their SUV hit a truck. The latest
report is that there were text messages just seconds before the
crash. It was the driver's phone, but no proof if she was the one
texting or not.

Around here, cars are the biggest killers.

[enigma]

Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in
news:***@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> Around here, gun deaths are quite rare but all killings
> still make the news.
>
> The saddest -- even sadder than what happened here -- were
> the 5 kids killed outside of Rochester when their SUV hit a
> truck. The latest report is that there were text messages
> just seconds before the crash. It was the driver's phone,
> but no proof if she was the one texting or not.

she was also driving on a learner's permit at 10pm (an hour
later than allowed) with no adult survision & other kids in
the car (also not allowed under the permit) & exceeding the
55MPH speed limit. what were the parents thinking when they
allowed this?

> Around here, cars are the biggest killers.
in NY? yeah, the 55 limit on winding backroads with +
intersections is kind of scary at night...
lee

[Doug Miller]

In article <1KPmi.24946$***@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:

>Just thought I'd point out that in the UK gun laws are way stricter than
>they are here and you almost never hear of firearms deaths there.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

>Apparently when guns actually are difficult to get, you don't need to have a
>gun to protect yourself from the other people who found them easy to get, as
>well.

The Brits are rapidly discovering that to not be true.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Stephen Sprunk]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Stephen, if police response time in your area is so very poor,
> why not spend some money (taxes) to improve it? Don't you
> think there would be a benefit?

Of course there would. That's why I live in a district that levies extra
taxes on itself to provide more police presence, and we're one of the safest
in the city. Many affluent suburban neighborhoods use HOA dues to contract
for extra police presence as well.

However, city-wide, the police presence is minimal because the poor vote
against politicians who propose tax increases to improve the situation, and
the city council is busy spending our taxes on sports stadiums, freeways,
and handouts to developers anyways.

> Quicker police response helps in other areas besides
> responding to crime. What if the above gun nut has a
> medical emergency?

That's the fire department (or EMS in some areas), not the police.

Let's see; the county sherriff's department is under threat of having its
jail closed by the DOJ due to abominable healthcare, and the sheriff herself
is going to be kicked out because she can't pass the state's LEO
certification. The county constable just resigned because he's facing
indictments for deporting his ex-boyfriend and for sexually harrassing
deputies. The city police department is dealing with _hundreds_ of civil
rights lawsuits from folks that cops planted drugs on, not to mention
charges of "official oppression" to the brass for encouraging such things.
Over half of cases in the entire state overturned on review of DNA evidence
come from our county (one of 254). Our SWAT team was humiliated on national
TV when they invaded a gentlemen's club, claiming there were arms dealers
holding hostages inside, when that was later shown to be completely made up
by the mayor after she caught her husband cheating on her with a dancer.
The city has further decided that too many calls to 911 (and I mean legit
reports of crime, not prank calls) will result in your property being
declared a "public nuisance" and seized.

In contrast, the city fire department saves dozens of lives every day, with
no lawsuits in sight. Everyone loves them. And it's no wonder -- they're
not a bunch of armed thugs.

> Police PRESENCE prevents crime. Police repsonse time
> saves lives.

No, they _deter_ crime, not prevent it. Mostly, they move crime from areas
with cops to areas without.

If you want to _prevent_ crime, spend money on social services to get people
out of poverty.

> But said gun nut would rather have low, or non existant taxes
> so he can crow about how many lives are saved by his loved
> guns.
>
> Spree killings would be non existant were is not for extremely
> easy access to firearms.

You do realize you're comparing an class of incident that happens once a
decade or so vs. _millions_ of crimes per year stopped by guns, right? Do
you not see the ludicrous nature of that argument?

> But the gun nuts as above could not stand that, so we have
> way too many spree killings. See Virginia Tech.

As I said before, spree killings are extremely rare. I agree that even one
is too many, however, even if we completely banned guns, they'd still occur
because criminals, by definition, are not bound by laws. What we need is
better enforcement of the laws we already have, and mental health care to
find and treat the nutjobs before they commit such acts.

More importantly, we need to reduce the tens of thousands of deaths every
year due to car accidents, the hundreds of thousands that die from
obesity-related illnesses, etc. Gun deaths aren't even a rounding error in
comparison -- they just get more news coverage _precisely because they're
rare_.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ken Finney]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
< snip >.
> You remain a gun nut,
< snip >

There is no such thing as a "gun nut". There are "firearms enthusiasts" and
"anti-gun nuts".

[[e-mail]]

On Jul 16, 12:53 pm, "Ken Finney" <***@boeing.com> wrote:
> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> < snip >.> You remain a gun nut,
>
> < snip >
>
> There is no such thing as a "gun nut". There are "firearms enthusiasts" and
> "anti-gun nuts".

You may believe anything you want, but you would be wrong.

You also remain a gun nut.

I hope that you do not get shot before you can pull a Marshall Dillon,
but as I said, then again, I hope you do.

Anything to eliminate another gun nut.

Do you clean yuor beloved guns all day long, petting them as you do
so?

Randy

[Ken Finney]

"***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 12:53 pm, "Ken Finney" <***@boeing.com> wrote:
>> "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> < snip >.> You remain a gun nut,
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "gun nut". There are "firearms enthusiasts"
>> and
>> "anti-gun nuts".
>
> You may believe anything you want, but you would be wrong.
>
> You also remain a gun nut.
>
> I hope that you do not get shot before you can pull a Marshall Dillon,
> but as I said, then again, I hope you do.
>
> Anything to eliminate another gun nut.
>
> Do you clean yuor beloved guns all day long, petting them as you do
> so?
>

No need to. I sleep with them in my bed. Less dangerous than a woman! ;^)

[Larry Caldwell]

In article <DeVli.18920$***@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, Linear54
@hotmail.com (Bay Area Holdout) says...

> Was always the best place to buy 12 gauge for a decent price. I bought in
> bulk for trap shooting, several cases for the duration of the season.
> Side comment: I always loved the looks from the folks waiting in line. Me
> there with my shopping cart load of 2000 rounds of 12 gauge ammo! Priceless!
> I just would smile back.

It sounds like it is time for you to set up to reload. I just bought a
press last month, because I bought a 28 gauge shotgun. Trap loads for a
28 gauge are $10 a box! Ouch! Anyway, while I was at it I bought 12
gauge dies for the loader. I'm still finding $4 a box Federal Top Gun
trap loads locally, but I might load some bismuth or Hevishot to save
some money on hunting loads.

Meanwhile, if trap loads ever get tight around here, I can always roll
my own.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

[BR]

Bay Area Holdout wrote:
> There are few Wal-Marts in the Bay Area. Part of the overall "hate" of the
> big box stores that liberals seem to have..go figure.
>
> Was always the best place to buy 12 gauge for a decent price. I bought in
> bulk for trap shooting, several cases for the duration of the season.
> Side comment: I always loved the looks from the folks waiting in line. Me
> there with my shopping cart load of 2000 rounds of 12 gauge ammo! Priceless!
> I just would smile back.
>
> After the lawsuit mentioned above, the two or three Wal-Marts that are
> reasonable close by no longer sell ammo or guns. I've yet to check out a
> Wal-Mart outside the large urban jungle I live in.
> Next trip up I-5 to Oregon perhaps I'll checkout Redding. If any W-M in
> California would still carry ammo and guns it would be there. If not than I
> guess the whole state is a write off!
>
> For now it just leaves Big 5 for ammo besides the straight gun shops which
> are also getting harder to find.
>
> Anyone tried mail order ammo? Prices look okay but I wonder about the
> shipping costs killing any advantage there?
>

I get my ammo Internet order from Cheaper than Dirt, and since you don't
pay sales tax that makes up for the shipping costs. (OK maybe in some
states you are supposed to report and declare "use tax", but I'll bet
very few people do).
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply privately.