[Stephen Springer]

In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of
(if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a
gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6
month long certification class and test, with an annual re-test and
registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up,
keeping the number of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

[Mark Zacharias]

"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:07 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
wrote:

"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.
We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.

The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
than the lives of 20 children?"

PlainBill

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:34:01 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:07 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
wrote:

"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.
We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.

The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
than the lives of 20 children?"

Wow! Just *WOW*. The ignorance is simply amazing.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.


BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Kelly]

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.


BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Don

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 2:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.


People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.


**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
comprehensively brainwashed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Kelly]

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks. The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?
As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.
As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help. Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed. The old west idea of gunfights as a
form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.





--
Don Kelly
remove the cross to reply

[soup]

G. Morgan wrote:

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,

Bwahawahawahawahawa wheeze wahawahawahawaha !

[Ramsman]

On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

I just told him the same thing.

I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
morals?).


Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.
[i]
Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]














--
Peter

[Michael A. Terrell]

"G. Morgan" wrote:[i]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

I just told him the same thing.

I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
morals?).

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]


That's because they have very few rights, and would get locked up or
executed if they mouthed off about their queers, err, Queens.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/19/2013 5:36 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all
alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.


BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Don


**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the ****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about. Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.


How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States

Kinda says it all, really.


The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.


"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/





You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.


And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?


If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

The question is "what's it to you?" Are you really that lonesome that
you have to troll? You really need a life.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.


Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
cite who the "kike" is.

Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
fine.

I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

Stupid septic.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:43:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
cite who the "kike" is.

Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
fine.

I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

Stupid septic.

Why do you keep changing your nym, troll?

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:41:07 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
cite who the "kike" is.

Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
fine.

I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

Freedom of speech? Your diversion noted.

That's not the crux of the issue, it's about why anyone outside of the US
thinks they can opine on our laws and make statements like "time to
change". No... You don't live here and that means you don't get to vote
on it. It's not a human rights issue, so the international community has
no say.

Stupid septic.

Nice sig.

What would you expect from Ron Reaugh? It *is* him.

[tuinkabouter]

On 16.04.2013 18:19, Stephen Springer wrote:
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of
(if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a
gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6
month long certification class and test, with an annual re-test and
registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up,
keeping the number of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

I heard the news about the bombs in Boston.

Is the pro arms lobby now say every good man should own a bomb?

[Charles[_7_]]

Thought I was on a repair forum.

Sorry.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Charles wrote:

Thought I was on a repair forum.

Sorry.


We know you're sorry. You are also ignorant or maybe stupid, in that
you can't read headers, or filter out cross posted threads.

[soup]

Stephen Springer wrote:

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

I don't really know what you mean by "light them up"
But better stabbed and alive than shot and dead. Of course it would be
better if they were left alone.

Oh and BTW what has religion got to do with it?