allowing guns in cockpits

[Private]

allowing guns in cockpits

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
> allowing guns in cockpits
>
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.

-Robert

[Denny]

On Jan 2, 11:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> > allowing guns in cockpits
>
> >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
> don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>
> -Robert

On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own gun and
bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...

denny

[F. Baum]

On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> > allowing guns in cockpits
>
> >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
> don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>
> -Robert

The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
the source).
FB

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Private" > wrote in :

> allowing guns in cockpits
>
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
>

Not exaclty up to date, is it?


Bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

"Private" > wrote in message
...
> allowing guns in cockpits
>
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

Ah. -That's- why people call it the "World Nut Daily"

-c

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 3, 4:13*am, Denny > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 11:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> > > allowing guns in cockpits
>
> > >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> > It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
> > don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>
> > -Robert
>
> On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own gun and
> bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...

Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When a
city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not have
guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who has never
touched a gun before will find this offensive but the truth isn't
always pretty.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:0fea4faf-0ee7-4edb-bd8f-
:

> On Jan 3, 4:13*am, Denny > wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 11:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>
>> > > allowing guns in cockpits
>>
>> > >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>
>> > It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
>> > don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>
>> > -Robert
>>
>> On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own gun and
>> bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...
>
> Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
> citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
> empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When a
> city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not have
> guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who has never
> touched a gun before will find this offensive but the truth isn't
> always pretty.

Well, I've touched more than a few guns and still own one, but I think
you're wrong.I've also been in some parts of the world where guns are more
commonplace ( well,. more visible) than in the US and they are very very
dangerous places indeed. They also have death penalty laws for just about
everything and all that appears to do is ensure that any crime is a matter
of life or death for the perpetrator thus giving him nothing to lose by
kicking it up a notch. I'm no bleeding heart, BTW. I only want what works.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
> citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
> empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When a
> city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not have
> guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who has never
> touched a gun before will find this offensive but the truth isn't
> always pretty.
>
> -Robert

And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13o7m1soscj2k18
@news.supernews.com:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
>> citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
>> empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When a
>> city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not have
>> guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who has never
>> touched a gun before will find this offensive but the truth isn't
>> always pretty.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.
>

Oh good grief.


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Private" > wrote in message
> ...
>> allowing guns in cockpits
>>
>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> Ah. -That's- why people call it the "World Nut Daily"
>

But shoting from an aircraft still isn't the safest thing to do...

http://www.goagro.org/FederalAccidents.htm
http://www.goagro.org/NonFederalAccidents.htm


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Matt Whiting]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Private" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> allowing guns in cockpits
>>>
>>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>> Ah. -That's- why people call it the "World Nut Daily"
>>
>
> But shoting from an aircraft still isn't the safest thing to do...

I think it is safer than being flown into a building.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 8, 8:08*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com> wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Private" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> allowing guns in cockpits
>
> >>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> > Ah. * -That's- why people call it the "World Nut Daily"
>
> But shoting from an aircraft still isn't the safest thing to do...
>
> http://www.goagro.org/FederalAccidents.htmhttp://www.goagro.org/NonFederalAccidents.htm
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

I read the tirst two reports of the first link. Looked to me like the
guns had nothing to do with the crashes.

Wil

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 8, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:0fea4faf-0ee7-4edb-bd8f-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 4:13*am, Denny > wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 11:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> >> > > allowing guns in cockpits
>
> >> > >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> >> > It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
> >> > don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>
> >> > -Robert
>
> >> On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own gun and
> >> bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...
>
> > Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
> > citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
> > empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When a
> > city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not have
> > guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who has never
> > touched a gun before will find this offensive but the truth isn't
> > always pretty.
>
> Well, I've touched more than a few guns and still own one, but I think
> you're wrong.I've also been in some parts of the world where guns are more
> commonplace ( well,. more visible) than in the US and they are very very
> dangerous places indeed. They also have death penalty laws for just about
> everything and all that appears to do is ensure that any crime is a matter
> of life or death for the perpetrator thus giving him nothing to lose by
> kicking it up a notch. I'm no bleeding heart, BTW. I only want what works.

I saw a saying the other day that went something like this "to say
that guns kill people is like saying pencils cause misspelling".

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 3, 4:26*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> > > allowing guns in cockpits
>
> > >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>
> > It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
> > don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>
> > -Robert
>
> The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
> the source).
> FB

There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back. I
guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
provide our personal security.

-Robert

[Veeduber]

On Jan 8, 12:11 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:

> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.

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

Personal experience, too.

After Arizona passed its concealed carry law in the early 1990's their
precipitous drop in certain types of crime was matched by a rise in
those statistics here in southern California as the perps sought less
dangerous hunting grounds. Of course, the bleeding hearts insist that
can't be right... :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 8, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:0fea4faf-0ee7-4edb-bd8f-
>
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 3, 4:13*am, Denny > wrote:
>> >> On Jan 2, 11:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > allowing guns in cockpits
>>
>> >> > >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>
>> >> > It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work
>> >> > for don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>
>> >> > -Robert
>>
>> >> On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own gun
>> >> and bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...
>>
>> > Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
>> > citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
>> > empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When
>> > a city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not
>> > have guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who
>> > has never touched a gun before will find this offensive but the
>> > truth isn't always pretty.
>>
>> Well, I've touched more than a few guns and still own one, but I
>> think you're wrong.I've also been in some parts of the world where
>> guns are more
>
>> commonplace ( well,. more visible) than in the US and they are very
>> very dangerous places indeed. They also have death penalty laws for
>> just about everything and all that appears to do is ensure that any
>> crime is a matter
>
>> of life or death for the perpetrator thus giving him nothing to lose
>> by kicking it up a notch. I'm no bleeding heart, BTW. I only want
>> what works.
>
>
> I saw a saying the other day that went something like this "to say
> that guns kill people is like saying pencils cause misspelling".

Well, it was more the laws I was addressing. The high availability of
guns was the problem there, but the ferociously high violent crime rate
( not as high as the US, but close) also involved machetes and knives.
The laws were so brutal that life became very cheap and it's only
getting worse.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:9d642ad3-b78a-4160-
:

> On Jan 3, 4:26*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>
>> > > allowing guns in cockpits
>>
>> > >http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>
>> > It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work
for
>> > don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>
>> > -Robert
>>
>> The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look
at
>> the source).
>> FB
>
> There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
> mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
> try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back.

Actually, that law was still in place up until the late fifties at
least.
It was only carried over from rail law. Largely because a lot of the
early mail contracts were extensions of rail contracts.


I
> guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
> stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
> provide our personal security.

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun. The guys who have
opted into carrying have had some special training on accout of this
concern, but the fact is ther are better ways to do this which I'm no
going to discuss here, cowboy bob.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Veeduber > wrote in
:

> On Jan 8, 12:11 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
>
> Personal experience, too.
>
> After Arizona passed its concealed carry law in the early 1990's their
> precipitous drop in certain types of crime was matched by a rise in
> those statistics here in southern California as the perps sought less
> dangerous hunting grounds. Of course, the bleeding hearts insist that
> can't be right... :-)
>


I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
crime.



Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
> but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
> crime.

Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Veeduber > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jan 8, 12:11 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------------
>>
>> Personal experience, too.
>>
>> After Arizona passed its concealed carry law in the early 1990's their
>> precipitous drop in certain types of crime was matched by a rise in
>> those statistics here in southern California as the perps sought less
>> dangerous hunting grounds. Of course, the bleeding hearts insist that
>> can't be right... :-)
>>
>
>
> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
> but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
> crime.
>
>
>
> Bertie


Bertie,

There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
holder of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in
legal self defense. There is no good reason that a citizen of this
country who has no criminal history and has passed a training program
shouldn't be allowed to protect himself.

[tim]

On Jan 9, 2:55*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
> > but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
> > crime.
>
> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Guy's

What the......

homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
5.6....very polite

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

tim wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:55 pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
>>> but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
>>> crime.
>> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
>> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>
> Guy's
>
> What the......
>
> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
> 5.6....very polite


What the....

Switzerland has 2/100,000 homicide rate and a very low crime rate overall.

Every male between 21 and 32 are issued an assault rifle and ammo and
are REQUIRED to keep them in their home. Older males may continue in a
reserve function and are issued a bolt operate rifle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm


Guns don't casuse crime. Poverty causes crime.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Veeduber > wrote in
>> news:4c62a9f8-38bd-4a33-9582-

>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 12:11 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- -----------------------
>>>
>>> Personal experience, too.
>>>
>>> After Arizona passed its concealed carry law in the early 1990's
>>> their precipitous drop in certain types of crime was matched by a
>>> rise in those statistics here in southern California as the perps
>>> sought less dangerous hunting grounds. Of course, the bleeding
>>> hearts insist that can't be right... :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had
>> to. but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to
>> stem violent crime.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Bertie,
>
> There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
> holder of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in
> legal self defense.

Good grief. You;'re serious, aren't you?

There is no good reason that a citizen of this
> country who has no criminal history and has passed a training program
> shouldn't be allowed to protect himself.
>

But he won't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> tim wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2:55 pm, Jay Maynard >
>> wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had
>>>> to. but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to
>>>> stem violent crime.
>>> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
>>> --
>>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC
>>> http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com
>>> http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes,
>>> that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff
>>> athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>>
>> Guy's
>>
>> What the......
>>
>> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
>> 5.6....very polite
>
>
> What the....
>
> Switzerland has 2/100,000 homicide rate and a very low crime rate
> overall.
>
> Every male between 21 and 32 are issued an assault rifle and ammo and
> are REQUIRED to keep them in their home. Older males may continue in a
> reserve function and are issued a bolt operate rifle.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
>
>
> Guns don't casuse crime. Poverty causes crime.

Which would indicate it's not the armament but the godl teeth in the
basement that is keeping crime at bay.

Not to mention the fact that they gas litterbugs.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had
>> to. but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to
>> stem violent crime.
>
> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.

No, it isn't.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in

>> Bertie,
>>
>> There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
>> holder of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in
>> legal self defense.
>
> Good grief. You;'re serious, aren't you?
>

Yes, I am. Do you have any info that contradicts my stance?



> There is no good reason that a citizen of this
>> country who has no criminal history and has passed a training program
>> shouldn't be allowed to protect himself.
>>
>
> But he won't.
>
>

He won't what?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>
>>> Bertie,
>>>
>>> There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
>>> holder of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than
in
>>> legal self defense.
>>
>> Good grief. You;'re serious, aren't you?
>>
>
> Yes, I am. Do you have any info that contradicts my stance?

Yes, but I fear it'd be pointelss to introduce it to you.

FWIW, I diod cross post another thread from a k00k on RAM, and you need
not try and tell me he's an exception. Most gun nuts I've met are
wrapped Waaaaaaay too tight.
>
>
>
>> There is no good reason that a citizen of this
>>> country who has no criminal history and has passed a training
program
>>> shouldn't be allowed to protect himself.
>>>
>>
>> But he won't.
>>
>>
>
> He won't what?


Be able to defend himself.

I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of it,
then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be much more
effective on the day.



Bertie
>

[kontiki]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of it,
> then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be much more
> effective on the day.
>

Not all people have the mental fortitude and personal discipline
to be competent with a firearm and be prepared to use it effectively
to defend themselves or another person. For them, alternatives
are better.

For that segment of society who have obtained a CCW permit, i.e.
have a clean criminal and mental bill of health & have taken
time for required training and discipline, the fact remains that
they overwhelmingly have a spotless record in terms of not
committing crimes and even saving lives and stopping criminals.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of
>> it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be
>> much more effective on the day.
>>
>
> Not all people have the mental fortitude and personal discipline
> to be competent with a firearm and be prepared to use it effectively
> to defend themselves or another person. For them, alternatives
> are better.
>
Well yes. The thing is if you pick one up for defence, you have to be
entirely setain that you will be able to use it to kill and you had also
better be prepared to use it effectively.
I am sure that fewer than 1% of the holders can make that claim.


> For that segment of society who have obtained a CCW permit, i.e.
> have a clean criminal and mental bill of health & have taken
> time for required training and discipline, the fact remains that
> they overwhelmingly have a spotless record in terms of not
> committing crimes and even saving lives and stopping criminals.
>

Well, I know of one who killed his girlfriend in an argument over her
with another suitor.
She was 21, had a child with the intended victim.
Literally dozens of lives wrecked and one gone forever.

Multiply that by thousands every year.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
> pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme. I guess a gun isn't useful unless it has a nuclear
warhead on it and can take out an entire battalion of soldiers. Its a
lot like saying anyone who picks up a pen better be ready to rewrite
the works of Shakespeare because anything less is not useful.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 6:39*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Veeduber > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:11 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> >> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------
>
> > Personal experience, too.
>
> > After Arizona passed its concealed carry law in the early 1990's their
> > precipitous drop in certain types of crime was matched by a rise in
> > those statistics here in southern California as the perps sought less
> > dangerous hunting grounds. *Of course, the bleeding hearts insist that
> > can't be right... :-)
>
> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
> but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
> crime.

Again, you try to take an argument to a ridiculous extreme in order to
make a flimsy point. No one said everyone should be armed.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote :

> Be able to defend himself.
>
> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of it,
> then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be much more
> effective on the day.

So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend myself and
my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical liberal
argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be allowed to own
one".

-robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
:

> On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
>> pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.
>
> Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
> ridicules extreme.


It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event of an
organised hijacking.


I guess a gun isn't useful unless it has a nuclear
> warhead on it and can take out an entire battalion of soldiers. Its a
> lot like saying anyone who picks up a pen better be ready to rewrite
> the works of Shakespeare because anything less is not useful.
>

Nce try, but we who have been asked to carry the guns have looked into
this, ya know.

The one guy I know well who is carrying is primarily doing it because he's
hoping for the oportunity to shoot someone.

Nobody carries a gun on my flight deck.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 6:39*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Veeduber > wrote
>> innews:4c62a9f8-38bd-4a33-9582-35861a668
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 12:11 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> And perfectly good academic research backs up your belief.
>>
>> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --- -----------------------
>>
>> > Personal experience, too.
>>
>> > After Arizona passed its concealed carry law in the early 1990's
>> > their precipitous drop in certain types of crime was matched by a
>> > rise in those statistics here in southern California as the perps
>> > sought less dangerous hunting grounds. *Of course, the bleeding
>> > hearts insist that
>
>> > can't be right... :-)
>>
>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had
>> to. but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to
>> stem violen
> t
>> crime.
>
> Again, you try to take an argument to a ridiculous extreme in order to
> make a flimsy point. No one said everyone should be armed.
>

Uh, yes they did.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> kontiki > wrote :

> Well, I know of one who killed his girlfriend in an argument over her
> with another suitor.
> She was 21, had a child with the intended victim.
> Literally dozens of lives wrecked and one gone forever.
>
> Multiply that by thousands every year.

That's a good argument to ban knives, bats, hammers, etc. Pencils
don't misspell words, people do.
I'm sure the guy said "Gee, I've love to kill my girl friend but I
don't have a gun and knives and bats are just too damn messy. Oh,
well I guess I'll just give her a kiss good night instead" <liberal
fantasy off>

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote
>> innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Be able to defend himself.
>>
>> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of
>> it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be
>> much more effective on the day.
>
> So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend myself and
> my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical liberal
> argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be allowed to own
> one".


So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?

Who said I was a liberal, you fjukwit?

That what you label anyone who disagrees with your idiocy?


BTW, if you read my post properly you might have read I have a gun. I still
have a gun and I like guns. I think they're fun.
The reality is, when they are required, they don't work, and in between
times they kill hundreds.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> kontiki > wrote
>> innews:HZ7hj.1882$7d1.1049@news01.
> roc.ny:
>
>> Well, I know of one who killed his girlfriend in an argument over her
>> with another suitor.
>> She was 21, had a child with the intended victim.
>> Literally dozens of lives wrecked and one gone forever.
>>
>> Multiply that by thousands every year.
>
> That's a good argument to ban knives, bats, hammers, etc. Pencils
> don't misspell words, people do.
> I'm sure the guy said "Gee, I've love to kill my girl friend but I
> don't have a gun and knives and bats are just too damn messy. Oh,
> well I guess I'll just give her a kiss good night instead" <liberal
> fantasy off>
>

It wasn;t a fantasy, fjukkwit.

This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are destroyed and if
any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude towards
this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..




Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

>
>But shoting from an aircraft still isn't the safest thing to do...
>--
>Geoff

he he..."overzealous composure"

5/3/00 Unknown locale None None
Gunner shot propeller while behaving with "overzealous composure." Plane
landed alright. Super Cub 91Y

Man, them coyotes are rackin' up some kills.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :

> BTW, if you read my post properly you might have read I have a gun. I still
> have a gun and I like guns. I think they're fun.
> The reality is, when they are required, they don't work, and in between
> times they kill hundreds.

I'm not aware of any time in history when a gun has ever killed
anyone.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
> :
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
> >> pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.
>
> > Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
> > ridicules extreme.
>
> It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event of an
> organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers?? These guys had box cutters. The only way
they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
> :
>
>> BTW, if you read my post properly you might have read I have a gun. I
>> stil
> l
>> have a gun and I like guns. I think they're fun.
>> The reality is, when they are required, they don't work, and in
>> between times they kill hundreds.
>
> I'm not aware of any time in history when a gun has ever killed
> anyone.


Ah, I see the problem now.

You can't read.


OK,

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote
> >> innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
> > @news.supernews.com:
>
> >> Be able to defend himself.
>
> >> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of
> >> it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be
> >> much more effective on the day.
>
> > So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend myself and
> > my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical liberal
> > argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be allowed to own
> > one".
>
> So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?

"...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed"

I don't need to justify my desire to defend myself to you, nor does
any other law abiding citizen.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
>
>> :
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
>> >> a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.
>>
>> > Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
>> > ridicules extreme.
>>
>> It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
>> of an
>
>> organised hijacking.
>
> So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
> 9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
> trained military soldiers??


Nope.

These guys had box cutters. The only way
> they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
> in which they would encounter minimum resistance.
>

Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are destroyed and if
> any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude towards
> this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..

If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it you
would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe that
this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of killing her
if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball bats
kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right to own a
firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a hammer?

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
> :
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote
>> >> innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
>> > @news.supernews.com:
>>
>> >> Be able to defend himself.
>>
>> >> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better
>> >> of it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will
>> >> be much more effective on the day.
>>
>> > So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend myself
>> > and my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical liberal
>> > argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be allowed to own
>> > one".
>>
>> So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?
>
> "...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed"
>

Out of context, illiterate boi.

> I don't need to justify my desire to defend myself to you, nor does
> any other law abiding citizen.


You do if I decide you are a threat .



Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> >> innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
> > :
>
> >> BTW, if you read my post properly you might have read I have a gun. I
> >> stil
> > l
> >> have a gun and I like guns. I think they're fun.
> >> The reality is, when they are required, they don't work, and in
> >> between times they kill hundreds.
>
> > I'm not aware of any time in history when a gun has ever killed
> > anyone.
>
> Ah, I see the problem now.
>
> You can't read.

Insult is the best way to avoid a factual response in a debate.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are destroyed
>> and if
>
>> any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude
>> towards
>
>> this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..
>
> If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it you
> would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe that
> this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of killing her
> if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball bats
> kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right to own a
> firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a hammer?


He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.

I read your post.
I read very well.

And I will get your gun.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim > wrote:

> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
> 5.6....very polite

Do you think having less guns would change that significantly? More
people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK. Are
you propsing to outlaw those items or are we still talking about guns?

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:b1475bf5-abd6-4087-8f69-9
> :
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> >> innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
>> > :
>>
>> >> BTW, if you read my post properly you might have read I have a
>> >> gun. I stil
>> > l
>> >> have a gun and I like guns. I think they're fun.
>> >> The reality is, when they are required, they don't work, and in
>> >> between times they kill hundreds.
>>
>> > I'm not aware of any time in history when a gun has ever killed
>> > anyone.
>>
>> Ah, I see the problem now.
>>
>> You can't read.
>
> Insult is the best way to avoid a factual response in a debate.

Why, you thinking of turning to it as an alternative to the non-sequitors
you;'ve been throwing out?

You aren't debating, you're jerking off.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1ed36d0a-a5ce-4116-8d55-
:

> On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim > wrote:
>
>> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US
>> 5.6....very polite
>
> Do you think having less guns would change that significantly?

Yes,


More
> people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK.


Yeh, that's right.


Are
> you propsing to outlaw those items or are we still talking about guns?


Spurious.

Learn how to read.,


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1ed36d0a-a5ce-4116-8d55-
> :
>
> > On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim > wrote:
>
> >> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US
> >> 5.6....very polite
>
> > Do you think having less guns would change that significantly?
>
> Yes,
>
> More
>
> > people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK.
>
> Yeh, that's right.

well at least you recognize that guns are not the issue. Still not
clear why you believe reducing guns might solve a problem though in
which guns are not the issue.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are destroyed
> >> and if
>
> >> any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude
> >> towards
>
> >> this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..
>
> > If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it you
> > would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe that
> > this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of killing *her
> > if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball bats
> > kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right to own a
> > firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a hammer?
>
> He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.

Your ability to avoid the issue shows how well you've thought this
out. There are other ways to kill someone other than to legally buy a
gun. If you honestly believe that we would not have killed her if he
did not have access to a legal gun you are either delusional or an
idiot.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> You aren't debating, you're jerking off.

Your anger has taken hostage your logic. Now you can't even put
together a reasonable argument. Of course if you throw out logic and
run on raw emotion you can make the argument to ban guns, dogs, PC,
etc.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:55*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> >> innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
> > :
>
> >> > On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote
> >> >> innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
> >> > @news.supernews.com:
>
> >> >> Be able to defend himself.
>
> >> >> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better
> >> >> of it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will
> >> >> be much more effective on the day.
>
> >> > So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend myself
> >> > and my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical liberal
> >> > argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be allowed to own
> >> > one".
>
> >> So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?
>
> > "...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> > infringed"
>
> Out of context, illiterate boi.
>
> > I don't need to justify my desire to defend myself to you, nor does
> > any other law abiding citizen.
>
> You do if I decide you are a threat .

That was what the constitutional founders feared most.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:1ed36d0a-a5ce-4116-8d55-
>
>> :
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim > wrote:
>>
>> >> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US
>> >> 5.6....very polite
>>
>> > Do you think having less guns would change that significantly?
>>
>> Yes,
>>
>> More
>>
>> > people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK.
>>
>> Yeh, that's right.
>
> well at least you recognize that guns are not the issue. Still not
> clear why you believe reducing guns might solve a problem though in
> which guns are not the issue.


Probably because you can't read.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:fe98ef57-0503-429f-ad6f-4
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are
>> >> destroyed and if
>>
>> >> any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude
>> >> towards
>>
>> >> this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..
>>
>> > If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it
>> > you would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe
>> > that this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of
>> > killing *her
>
>> > if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball
>> > bats kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right
>> > to own a firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a
>> > hammer?
>>
>> He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.
>
> Your ability to avoid the issue shows how well you've thought this
> out. There are other ways to kill someone other than to legally buy a
> gun. If you honestly believe that we would not have killed her if he
> did not have access to a legal gun you are either delusional or an
> idiot.
>

Yeah, right. We're back to the you can't read thing again.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:2a94ef5b-5f5f-4396-97b2-
:

> On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> You aren't debating, you're jerking off.
>
> Your anger has taken hostage your logic. Now you can't even put
> together a reasonable argument. Of course if you throw out logic and
> run on raw emotion you can make the argument to ban guns, dogs, PC,
> etc.
>

I put forth a perfectly reasonable argument.


You didn't read it.


Bertie
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 10:50*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
>
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
> >> >> a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.
>
> >> > Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
> >> > ridicules extreme.
>
> >> It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
> >> of an
>
> >> organised hijacking.
>
> > So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
> > 9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
> > trained military soldiers??
>
> Nope.
>
> *These guys had box cutters. The only way
>
> > they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
> > in which they would encounter minimum resistance.
>
> Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
> appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
> We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
> majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.
>
> But hey, why am I wasting time writing?
>
> You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:55*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:d2f44a9e-5e42-4c54-8686-a
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> >> innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote
>> >> >> innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
>> >> > @news.supernews.com:
>>
>> >> >> Be able to defend himself.
>>
>> >> >> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought
>> >> >> better of it, then and provided her with some good alternatives
>> >> >> that will be much more effective on the day.
>>
>> >> > So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend
>> >> > myself and my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical
>> >> > liberal argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be
>> >> > allowed to own one".
>>
>> >> So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?
>>
>> > "...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>> > infringed"
>>
>> Out of context, illiterate boi.
>>
>> > I don't need to justify my desire to defend myself to you, nor does
>> > any other law abiding citizen.
>>
>> You do if I decide you are a threat .
>
> That was what the constitutional founders feared most.
>

And they were right. But you obviously haven;t read the constitution
either.

Also, you're making presumptions about me which, even if you could read,
would render the whole argument more absurd than you could imagine.

Well, make that "tha someone who could read and actually posessed an
imagination" could imagine.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 10:50*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:478cfb6b-e883-407d-a9d7-f
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
>>
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood
>> >> >> of a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.
>>
>> >> > Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to
>> >> > the ridicules extreme.
>>
>> >> It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the
>> >> event of an
>>
>> >> organised hijacking.
>>
>> > So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes
>> > on 9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
>> > trained military soldiers??
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> *These guys had box cutters. The only way
>>
>> > they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an
>> > environment in which they would encounter minimum resistance.
>>
>> Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
>> appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
>> We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
>> majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.
>>
>> But hey, why am I wasting time writing?
>>
>> You can't read.
>
> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
> emotional investment in the issue.

I responded with logic,. You didn;'t read.


Bertie

[kontiki]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
> emotional investment in the issue.
>

The vast majority of arguments against gun ownership are not
based on logic or reason at all.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:1H9hj.1758$Sa1.518
@news02.roc.ny:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>
>> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
>> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
>> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
>> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
>> emotional investment in the issue.
>>
>
> The vast majority of arguments against gun ownership are not
> based on logic or reason at all.
>
>

Mostly they;re based on dead bodies.


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> tim wrote:

>>
>> What the......
>>
>> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
>> 5.6....very polite
>
>
> What the....
>
> Switzerland has 2/100,000 homicide rate and a very low crime rate overall.
>
> Every male between 21 and 32 are issued an assault rifle and ammo and are
> REQUIRED to keep them in their home. Older males may continue in a reserve
> function and are issued a bolt operate rifle.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

OTOH, Mexico, with some of the most restrictive controls on earth, has a
rate two or three times the US rate.
>
>
> Guns don't casuse crime. Poverty causes crime.

Or maybe it's: crime causes poverty. Think about it: who would trust a
criminal in a commercial/financial endeavor?

Think: culture.

[kontiki]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> kontiki > wrote in news:1H9hj.1758$Sa1.518
> @news02.roc.ny:
>
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
>>> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
>>> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
>>> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
>>> emotional investment in the issue.
>>>
>> The vast majority of arguments against gun ownership are not
>> based on logic or reason at all.
>>
>>
>
> Mostly they;re based on dead bodies.
>

You just proved my point.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"tim" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 2:55 pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
> > but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem
> > violent
> > crime.
>
> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com
> http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

}Guy's
}
}What the......
}
}homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
}5.6....very polite

England is neither armed, nor polite. It's violent crime rate, in the midst
of disarming the population, is SKYROCKETING.

Back to the drawing board.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:fZ9hj.1763$Sa1.1377
@news02.roc.ny:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> kontiki > wrote in news:1H9hj.1758$Sa1.518
>> @news02.roc.ny:
>>
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
>>>> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
>>>> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
>>>> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
>>>> emotional investment in the issue.
>>>>
>>> The vast majority of arguments against gun ownership are not
>>> based on logic or reason at all.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Mostly they;re based on dead bodies.
>>
>
> You just proved my point.
>

I wasn;t arguing your point.


Not that you;'re correct, of course.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "tim" > wrote in message
> news:95ea9054-ec62-44d3-a6ec-
.
> .. On Jan 9, 2:55 pm, Jay Maynard >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had
>> > to. but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to
>> > stem violent
>> > crime.
>>
>> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC
>> http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com
>> http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
>> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>
> }Guy's
> }
> }What the......
> }
> }homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
> }5.6....very polite
>
> England is neither armed, nor polite. It's violent crime rate, in the
> midst of disarming the population, is SKYROCKETING.

They;re not in the midst of disarming the population. on the contrary.

>
> Back to the drawing board.

What, going to find some more disingenuous info there?

Bertie
>
>

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...

>
> There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the holder
> of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in legal self
> defense. There is no good reason that a citizen of this country who has no
> criminal history and has passed a training program shouldn't be allowed to
> protect himself.

Why should he have to go beg the state for permission to protect himself?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
>> holder of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in
>> legal self defense. There is no good reason that a citizen of this
>> country who has no criminal history and has passed a training program
>> shouldn't be allowed to protect himself.
>
> Why should he have to go beg the state for permission to protect
> himself?

Good grief.


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of it,
>> then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be much more
>> effective on the day.
>
> Not all people have the mental fortitude and personal discipline
> to be competent with a firearm and be prepared to use it effectively
> to defend themselves or another person. For them, alternatives
> are better.
>
> For that segment of society who have obtained a CCW permit, i.e.
> have a clean criminal and mental bill of health & have taken
> time for required training and discipline, the fact remains that
> they overwhelmingly have a spotless record in terms of not
> committing crimes and even saving lives and stopping criminals.

I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse: a
retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in accordance
to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police officer) who shot
up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his ex-wife. It occurred several
years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>> I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better of
>>> it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will be
>>> much more effective on the day.
>>
>> Not all people have the mental fortitude and personal discipline
>> to be competent with a firearm and be prepared to use it effectively
>> to defend themselves or another person. For them, alternatives
>> are better.
>>
>> For that segment of society who have obtained a CCW permit, i.e.
>> have a clean criminal and mental bill of health & have taken
>> time for required training and discipline, the fact remains that
>> they overwhelmingly have a spotless record in terms of not
>> committing crimes and even saving lives and stopping criminals.
>
> I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse:
> a retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in
> accordance to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police
> officer) who shot up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his
> ex-wife. It occurred several years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>

Well, he deserved to lose his permit.

I hope he felt properly chastised.


Bertie
>

http://www.dubba.com/hookah/lyrics/thehuntingsong.htm
>

[kontiki]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse: a
> retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in accordance
> to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police officer) who shot
> up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his ex-wife. It occurred several
> years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>
>

Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>> I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse:
>> a retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in
>> accordance to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police
>> officer) who shot up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his
>> ex-wife. It occurred several years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>>
>>
>
> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.
>

Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.

Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>> I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse: a
>> retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in
>> accordance to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police
>> officer) who shot up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his ex-wife.
>> It occurred several years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>
> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.

Note the caveat in my story about the RETIRED POLICE OFFICER.

CCW laws still are aimed at those not inclined towards criminal behavior.

[kontiki]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
>> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
>> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
>> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
>> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.
>>
>
> Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.
>

I don't feel a need to tell myself anything.

[Jim Stewart]

kontiki wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>> I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse:
>> a retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in
>> accordance to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police
>> officer) who shot up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his
>> ex-wife. It occurred several years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>>
>
> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.

The scrutiny and costs are directly proportional
to the population density of your county, at least
in the western US.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:bsahj.1897$7d1.468
@news01.roc.ny:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
>>> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
>>> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
>>> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
>>> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.
>>
>
> I don't feel a need to tell myself anything.
>
>
>
>

I know.

Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 2, 10:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
> allowing guns in cockpits
>
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

Everone should have a fully pimped out gun.

http://justelite.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/_fun001.jpg

Wil

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-09, William Hung > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> allowing guns in cockpits
>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
> Everone should have a fully pimped out gun.
> http://justelite.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/_fun001.jpg

So should their daughters.

See the first picture at http://arthurshall.com/x_2007_manly_firearms.shtml .

As it happens, I know the author of that piece, and his daughter...and she
really can shoot that thing well.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 9, 4:32*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-01-09, William Hung > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 10:46*pm, "Private" > wrote:
> >> allowing guns in cockpits
> >>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
> > Everone should have a fully pimped out gun.
> >http://justelite.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/_fun001.jpg
>
> So should their daughters.
>
> See the first picture athttp://arthurshall.com/x_2007_manly_firearms.shtml..
>
> As it happens, I know the author of that piece, and his daughter...and she
> really can shoot that thing well.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

"All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers
who thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What
does that author have against Asians?

Wil

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-09, William Hung > wrote:
> "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers
> who thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What
> does that author have against Asians?

Nothing in particular; it's just that the majority of action the M-16 has
seen has been in Asia.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 9, 4:49*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-01-09, William Hung > wrote:
>
> > "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers
> > who thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." *What
> > does that author have against Asians?
>
> Nothing in particular; it's just that the majority of action the M-16 has
> seen has been in Asia.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

He could have phrased it better.

Wil

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:43:48 -0800, William Hung wrote:

> "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers who
> thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What does
> that author have against Asians?

It's like asian food... Once you kill one, 30 minutes later, you feel a
need to kill another... <sick-grin>

Of course, another corollary of this is what can be said about having sex
with asian women (aka LBFMs)... <dirty-old-man-grin>

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 11:15*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> >> innews:fe98ef57-0503-429f-ad6f-4
> > :
>
> >> > On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are
> >> >> destroyed and if
>
> >> >> any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude
> >> >> towards
>
> >> >> this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..
>
> >> > If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it
> >> > you would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe
> >> > that this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of
> >> > killing *her
>
> >> > if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball
> >> > bats kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right
> >> > to own a firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a
> >> > hammer?
>
> >> He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.
>
> > Your ability to avoid the issue shows how well you've thought this
> > out. There are other ways to kill someone other than to legally buy a
> > gun. If you honestly believe that we would not have killed her if he
> > did not have access to a legal gun you are either delusional or an
> > idiot.
>
> Yeah, right. We're back to the you can't read thing again.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I"m just glad this guy didn't use a knife or you'd have had me eating
my steak with a spoon. You failed to show that people intent on
killing people will only use a gun and you failed to show that
refusing good citizens guns would possitively affect the behavior of
criminals. Sadly, that is all that exists in the anti-gun argument,
raw, illogical emotion.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 12:37*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> > I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for misuse: a
> > retired police officer (whose permit was issued automatically in accordance
> > to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police officer) who shot
> > up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his ex-wife. It occurred several
> > years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>
> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.

Bertie has already told us that he is not interested in logic and will
only argue his emotional point that this friend of his would have been
a warm loving man to his GF where it not for the fact that he had
access to a gun (we don't know if it was legal or not). You can't
argue with irrational people, you can only allow them to walk the
streets mumbling to themselves and just hope they don't gain political
power.

-Robert

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 9, 5:18*pm, Grumman-581 >
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:43:48 -0800, William Hung wrote:
> > "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers who
> > thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." *What does
> > that author have against Asians?
>
> It's like asian food... Once you kill one, 30 minutes later, you feel a
> need to kill another... <sick-grin>
>
> Of course, another corollary of this is what can be said about having sex
> with asian women (aka LBFMs)... <dirty-old-man-grin>
>
> --
> See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

lol, jokes, I can handle.

Wil

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 9, 12:26*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the holder
> > of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in legal self
> > defense. There is no good reason that a citizen of this country who has no
> > criminal history and has passed a training program shouldn't be allowed to
> > protect himself.
>
> Why should he have to go beg the state for permission to protect himself?

Because Bertie believes that those that use guns illegally (its
illegal to shoot someone for no reason) will stop being violent if
there were no legal guns. Enjoy eating your steak now because Bertie
has plans to require you to use a spoon to eat it soon; else you may
decide to assault your wife with your fork.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:43:48 -0800, William Hung wrote:
>
>> "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers who
>> thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What does
>> that author have against Asians?
>
> It's like asian food... Once you kill one, 30 minutes later, you feel a
> need to kill another...


A bit like texans then

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 11:15*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:8e642a0e-59dd-4aa0-8d0f-4
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 10:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> >> innews:fe98ef57-0503-429f-ad6f-4
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are
>> >> >> destroyed and if
>>
>> >> >> any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling
>> >> >> attitude towards
>>
>> >> >> this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..
>>
>> >> > If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it
>> >> > you would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to
>> >> > believe that this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight
>> >> > instead of killing *her
>>
>> >> > if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball
>> >> > bats kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my
>> >> > right to own a firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF
>> >> > with a hammer?
>>
>> >> He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.
>>
>> > Your ability to avoid the issue shows how well you've thought this
>> > out. There are other ways to kill someone other than to legally buy
>> > a gun. If you honestly believe that we would not have killed her if
>> > he did not have access to a legal gun you are either delusional or
>> > an idiot.
>>
>> Yeah, right. We're back to the you can't read thing again.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I"m just glad this guy didn't use a knife or you'd have had me eating
> my steak with a spoon.


Yeah, he's going to try and stab another gy with a knife while he;s in a
speeding car moving from the scene and accidentally stab the girl
driving.


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 12:37*pm, kontiki > wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>> > I know of one case where a CCW holders permit was revoked for
>> > misuse: a retired police officer (whose permit was issued
>> > automatically in accorda
> nce
>> > to state CCW law by, virtue of his being a retired police officer)
>> > who s
> hot
>> > up a hospital ward in an attempt to kill his ex-wife. It occurred
>> > severa
> l
>> > years ago (circa 1995) in Mesa, Arizona.
>>
>> Well of course there may be one or two sad stories like that.
>> But mostly... the people who have CCW permits are subjected to
>> an extremely high degree of background scrutiny... and they
>> have to pay for the privilege. You won't really find too
>> many nut-jobs or gang-bangers willing to apply for one.
>
> Bertie has already told us that he is not interested in logic

No, I haven't. Which either makes you illiterate, a liar, or both.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 12:26*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in
>> messagenews:13o9q
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
>> > hold
> er
>> > of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in
>> > legal sel
> f
>> > defense. There is no good reason that a citizen of this country who
>> > has
> no
>> > criminal history and has passed a training program shouldn't be
>> > allowed
> to
>> > protect himself.
>>
>> Why should he have to go beg the state for permission to protect
>> himself?
>
> Because Bertie believes that those that use guns illegally (its
> illegal to shoot someone for no reason) will stop being violent if
> there were no legal guns. Enjoy eating your steak now because Bertie
> has plans to require you to use a spoon to eat it soon; else you may
> decide to assault your wife with your fork.
>

Yeah, show me where i said that. will you?


You're a liar.


Bertie
> -Robert
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

William Hung wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:49 pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-01-09, William Hung > wrote:
>>
>>> "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers
>>> who thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What
>>> does that author have against Asians?
>> Nothing in particular; it's just that the majority of action the M-16 has
>> seen has been in Asia.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
>> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>
> He could have phrased it better.
>
> Wil

I agree especially since where there were probably more 5.56mm rounds
fired in a "police action" where the Asians were the winners than all
other places combined.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Well, fork him and the horse he rode in on.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 12:26 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
>
> > There has yet to be, at least that I can find, a single case of the
> > holder
> > of a CCW permit using his/her firearm in any way other than in legal
> > self
> > defense. There is no good reason that a citizen of this country who has
> > no
> > criminal history and has passed a training program shouldn't be allowed
> > to
> > protect himself.
>
> Why should he have to go beg the state for permission to protect himself?

Because Bertie believes that those that use guns illegally (its
illegal to shoot someone for no reason) will stop being violent if
there were no legal guns. Enjoy eating your steak now because Bertie
has plans to require you to use a spoon to eat it soon; else you may
decide to assault your wife with your fork.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

> Well, fork him and the horse he rode in on.


Yeah, of course.


Bertie

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:44:55 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> A bit like texans then

Texas rappers, perhaps...

Speaking of which, we've had a few of them dying lately... All I can say
is, "It's a good start"...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:44:55 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> A bit like texans then
>
> Texas rappers, perhaps...
>
> Speaking of which, we've had a few of them dying lately... All I can say
> is, "It's a good start"...


Surely you learned a few other simple phrases as well?

Ya know,like

"I'll have wunna dem Foooords"


Or "My dawg is gettin uppity, he beat me at cards last night"

Or "Come here bitch, I ain't dunn beatin a yet"


Bertie
>

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 9, 5:52*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> William Hung wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 4:49 pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >> On 2008-01-09, William Hung > wrote:
>
> >>> "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers
> >>> who thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." *What
> >>> does that author have against Asians?
> >> Nothing in particular; it's just that the majority of action the M-16 has
> >> seen has been in Asia.
> >> --
> >> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org* * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> >> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>
> > He could have phrased it better.
>
> > Wil
>
> I agree especially since where there were probably more 5.56mm rounds
> fired in a "police action" where the Asians were the winners than all
> other places combined.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If he had used the word 'Gooks' I wouldn't have made my comment since
'Gooks' signified the enemies in that region, but when he used the
word Asian, it implied that all Asians are enemies which wasn't the
case.

Wil

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Surely you learned a few other simple phrases as well?
>
> Ya know,like
>
> "I'll have wunna dem Foooords"
>
>
> Or "My dawg is gettin uppity, he beat me at cards last night"
>
> Or "Come here bitch, I ain't dunn beatin a yet"

That's the best you can come up with? Damn, you sure you're not one of
those webtv idiots?

So, where you from? Did genetics make you this juvenile or was it your
environment?

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Surely you learned a few other simple phrases as well?
>>
>> Ya know,like
>>
>> "I'll have wunna dem Foooords"
>>
>>
>> Or "My dawg is gettin uppity, he beat me at cards last night"
>>
>> Or "Come here bitch, I ain't dunn beatin a yet"
>
> That's the best you can come up with? Damn, you sure you're not one of
> those webtv idiots?
>
> So, where you from?


Whay, yu gonna cum'n git me?

Did genetics make you this juvenile or was it your
> environment?


Well, either way you seem to be accusing me of being texan and them's
fighting words just about everywhere.

Bertie

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:20:51 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Whay, yu gonna cum'n git me?

Nawh, you're not worth my time... I'm just curious where (generally) you
are located... The interpersonal skills (or lack thereof in your case)
seem to be different in various parts of the country... In the South,
people tend to be generally friendly whereas up in the crowded warrens of
the northeast, people tend to be considerably more rude... I'm not sure if
it is just because of the crowding, but a combination of freezing their
butts off for quite a bit of the year combined with the crowding... Even
in Iowa, I found the people a bit more reserved, albeit not as overtly
hostile as in NYC, so I suspect that the weather does play a factor in it...

Oh well, if you're too scared of things to even say where you're from .......

> Well, either way you seem to be accusing me of being texan and them's
> fighting words just about everywhere.

I try not to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed... It's
just not all that sporting, ya' know?

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:20:51 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Whay, yu gonna cum'n git me?
>
> Nawh, you're not worth my time..

Yep. Texans usually say that.

.. I'm just curious where (generally)
> you are located...
ill bet.


The interpersonal skills (or lack thereof in your
> case) seem to be different in various parts of the country... In the
> South, people tend to be generally friendly whereas up in the crowded
> warrens of the northeast, people tend to be considerably more rude...
> I'm not sure if it is just because of the crowding, but a combination
> of freezing their butts off for quite a bit of the year combined with
> the crowding... Even in Iowa, I found the people a bit more reserved,
> albeit not as overtly hostile as in NYC, so I suspect that the weather
> does play a factor in it...
>
> Oh well, if you're too scared of things to even say where you're from

I'm not. But I'm not going to tell you n any case.

> .......
>
>> Well, either way you seem to be accusing me of being texan and them's
>> fighting words just about everywhere.
>
> I try not to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed...
> It's just not all that sporting, ya' know?
>

Yeh, good one. You've obviously been dong this since forever and have me
out-gunned.

Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Grumman-581 > wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:20:51 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Whay, yu gonna cum'n git me?
....
>
> Oh well, if you're too scared of things to even say where you're from

I don't see why Bertie isn't more forthcoming either. I mean what's the
harm? We all know everyone here is sane and decent. It's not like anyone
has ever tracked someone down in real life that they had a disagreement
with that started on Usenet - right? ....

(Hmmm. I wonder if I should be posting with my real name in a fight between
two posters who are using pseudonyms? Naw - seems safe. Anyway, gotta go
get the chainsaw to trim my toenails.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Grumman-581 > wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:20:51 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Whay, yu gonna cum'n git me?
> ...
>>
>> Oh well, if you're too scared of things to even say where you're from
>
> I don't see why Bertie isn't more forthcoming either. I mean what's
> the harm? We all know everyone here is sane and decent. It's not like
> anyone has ever tracked someone down in real life that they had a
> disagreement with that started on Usenet - right? ....
>

Well, for one thing I've left a string of ****ed of nazis in my wake, some
of whom are known for their fondness for going RL.
And then I also ****ed off New Zealand..


> (Hmmm. I wonder if I should be posting with my real name in a fight
> between two posters who are using pseudonyms? Naw - seems safe.
> Anyway, gotta go get the chainsaw to trim my toenails.)

I'm not fighting. I never do.

Bertie
>

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:48:47 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> (Hmmm. I wonder if I should be posting with my real name in a fight
> between two posters who are using pseudonyms? Naw - seems safe. Anyway,
> gotta go get the chainsaw to trim my toenails.)

Nawh, I am not afraid for someone to see my real name and address... I
used to use it on USENET, but I discovered that there were others with the
same name out there, so I started using my aircraft's identifier
instead... Just look in the NNTP headers to my posts and you'll find my
contact information including lat/long coordinates... I'm not one of those
cowards who tries to say things from behind an anonymous remailer or
semi-anonymous USENET post...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:48:47 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> (Hmmm. I wonder if I should be posting with my real name in a fight
>> between two posters who are using pseudonyms? Naw - seems safe.
>> Anyway, gotta go get the chainsaw to trim my toenails.)
>
> Nawh, I am not afraid for someone to see my real name and address... I
> used to use it on USENET, but I discovered that there were others with
> the same name out there, so I started using my aircraft's identifier
> instead... Just look in the NNTP headers to my posts and you'll find
> my contact information including lat/long coordinates... I'm not one
> of those cowards who tries to say things from behind an anonymous
> remailer or semi-anonymous USENET post...
>

I don;t use a remailer. And I'm not even semi anonymous,


No more than you are, fjukkwt

Bertie

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:39:26 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> I'm not. But I'm not going to tell you n any case.

Fair enough, I guess... Hopefully you won't feel too heartbroken that I'm
going to just ignore you from now on... Try not to take it too personal
though -- I do this with other juvenile posters also...

Bye...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:39:26 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I'm not. But I'm not going to tell you n any case.
>
> Fair enough, I guess... Hopefully you won't feel too heartbroken that I'm
> going to just ignore you from now on...

Nope. I never do. I encourage it in many case in fact.

Try not to take it too personal
> though -- I do this with other juvenile posters also...


> Bye

Lets just make it so long.



Bertie

[John Godwin]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in

m:

> You can't argue with irrational people, you can only allow
> them to walk the streets mumbling to themselves and just hope they
> don't gain political power.

Is that why Senator Diane Feinstein (anti-gun proponent) has a CCW
Permit?

--

[Matt Whiting]

tim wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:55 pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
>>> but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
>>> crime.
>> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
>> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>
> Guy's
>
> What the......
>
> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
> 5.6....very polite

You need to do a little more homework.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 3, 4:26 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 9:32 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 7:46 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>>> allowing guns in cockpits
>>>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>> It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
>>> don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>> -Robert
>> The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
>> the source).
>> FB
>
> There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
> mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
> try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back. I
> guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
> stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
> provide our personal security.

The sad part is that our liberal government and society today places
less value on human life than our forefathers placed on the mail.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> tim wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2:55 pm, Jay Maynard >
>> wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had
>>>> to. but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to
>>>> stem violent crime.
>>> Why not? An armed society is a polite society.
>>> --
>>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC
>>> http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com
>>> http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org (Yes,
>>> that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff
>>> athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
>>
>> Guy's
>>
>> What the......
>>
>> homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US =
>> 5.6....very polite
>
> You need to do a little more homework.
>
> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
>


I've seen the list before,.


Get to grips with this

http://www.reading.org/publications/bbv/books/bk592/index.html

And I'll move you on to some Dr Suess.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:yLehj.1416$2n4.31752
@news1.epix.net:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 4:26 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 9:32 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 2, 7:46 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>>>> allowing guns in cockpits
>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>>> It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
>>>> don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>>> -Robert
>>> The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
>>> the source).
>>> FB
>>
>> There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
>> mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
>> try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back. I
>> guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
>> stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
>> provide our personal security.
>
> The sad part is that our liberal government and society today places
> less value on human life than our forefathers placed on the mail.
>

Yeah, right.


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> I don't see why Bertie isn't more forthcoming either. I mean what's
>> the harm? We all know everyone here is sane and decent. It's not like
>> anyone has ever tracked someone down in real life that they had a
>> disagreement with that started on Usenet - right? ....
>>
>
> Well, for one thing I've left a string of ****ed of nazis in my wake,
> some of whom are known for their fondness for going RL.

I've heard of a few sad cases where people went after others in real life.
Such as calling their employers and getting them in trouble to see if they
could get them fired, among other nasty non-violent actions.

> And then I also ****ed off New Zealand..

Hopefully you learned you should never **** off kids. If you must, next
time consider attacking Old Zealand instead. It's more mature and doesn't
take itself so seriously (much). Besides, like old geezers everywhere it
has no punch left and you can always outrun it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

sean trost > wrote in news:47857E61.9030804
@roadrunner.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:80448c29-a435-4009-b96a-40db20a46f73
@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 12:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> news:0fea4faf-0ee7-4edb-bd8f-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 3, 4:13 am, Denny > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 2, 11:32 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:46 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> allowing guns in cockpits
>>>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>>>>>> It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work
>>>>>>> for don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>>>>>> -Robert
>>>>>> On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own
gun
>>>>>> and bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...
>>>>> Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
>>>>> citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
>>>>> empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today.
When
>>>>> a city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not
>>>>> have guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who
>>>>> has never touched a gun before will find this offensive but the
>>>>> truth isn't always pretty.
>>>> Well, I've touched more than a few guns and still own one, but I
>>>> think you're wrong.I've also been in some parts of the world where
>>>> guns are more
>>>> commonplace ( well,. more visible) than in the US and they are very
>>>> very dangerous places indeed. They also have death penalty laws for
>>>> just about everything and all that appears to do is ensure that any
>>>> crime is a matter
>>>> of life or death for the perpetrator thus giving him nothing to
lose
>>>> by kicking it up a notch. I'm no bleeding heart, BTW. I only want
>>>> what works.
>>>
>>> I saw a saying the other day that went something like this "to say
>>> that guns kill people is like saying pencils cause misspelling".
>>
>> Well, it was more the laws I was addressing. The high availability of
>> guns was the problem there, but the ferociously high violent crime
rate
>> ( not as high as the US, but close) also involved machetes and
knives.
>> The laws were so brutal that life became very cheap and it's only
>> getting worse.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> yes but the answer is not with guns or laws. But education.
>

Can't argue with that.

If more people could read there would be far fewer fjukwits around.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

sean trost > wrote in news:47857E72.5090705
@roadrunner.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:80448c29-a435-4009-b96a-40db20a46f73
@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 12:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> news:0fea4faf-0ee7-4edb-bd8f-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 3, 4:13 am, Denny > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 2, 11:32 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:46 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> allowing guns in cockpits
>>>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
>>>>>>> It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work
>>>>>>> for don't allow guns in the cockpit.
>>>>>>> -Robert
>>>>>> On my airline the passengers are expected to provide their own
gun
>>>>>> and bottle, because the pilot doesn't share...
>>>>> Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
>>>>> citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
>>>>> empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today.
When
>>>>> a city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not
>>>>> have guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who
>>>>> has never touched a gun before will find this offensive but the
>>>>> truth isn't always pretty.
>>>> Well, I've touched more than a few guns and still own one, but I
>>>> think you're wrong.I've also been in some parts of the world where
>>>> guns are more
>>>> commonplace ( well,. more visible) than in the US and they are very
>>>> very dangerous places indeed. They also have death penalty laws for
>>>> just about everything and all that appears to do is ensure that any
>>>> crime is a matter
>>>> of life or death for the perpetrator thus giving him nothing to
lose
>>>> by kicking it up a notch. I'm no bleeding heart, BTW. I only want
>>>> what works.
>>>
>>> I saw a saying the other day that went something like this "to say
>>> that guns kill people is like saying pencils cause misspelling".
>>
>> Well, it was more the laws I was addressing. The high availability of
>> guns was the problem there, but the ferociously high violent crime
rate
>> ( not as high as the US, but close) also involved machetes and
knives.
>> The laws were so brutal that life became very cheap and it's only
>> getting worse.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> yes but the answer is not with guns or laws. But education.
>

Yes, you said

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> I don't see why Bertie isn't more forthcoming either. I mean what's
>>> the harm? We all know everyone here is sane and decent. It's not
>>> like anyone has ever tracked someone down in real life that they had
>>> a disagreement with that started on Usenet - right? ....
>>>
>>
>> Well, for one thing I've left a string of ****ed of nazis in my wake,
>> some of whom are known for their fondness for going RL.
>
> I've heard of a few sad cases where people went after others in real
> life. Such as calling their employers and getting them in trouble to
> see if they could get them fired, among other nasty non-violent
> actions.

Oh, the baby nazis burned a cross into another guy's lawn. It was before my
time in that group, but they thought I was him after that. I still pull
their tails now and again.
>
>> And then I also ****ed off New Zealand..
>
> Hopefully you learned you should never **** off kids. If you must,
> next time consider attacking Old Zealand instead. It's more mature and
> doesn't take itself so seriously (much). Besides, like old geezers
> everywhere it has no punch left and you can always outrun it.

It wasn't too hard to keep them at bay. It was pretty funny really. Made
the papers and there were politicians invovled as well.

Oh yeah, and under another name I helped force an aviation issue in the
Brtish Parliament. no ****.

Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>
> m:
>
>> You can't argue with irrational people, you can only allow
>> them to walk the streets mumbling to themselves and just hope they
>> don't gain political power.
>
> Is that why Senator Diane Feinstein (anti-gun proponent) has a CCW
> Permit?
Her and quite a few other anti-gun pols...not to mention several dozen
(hundred) Hollyweird celebrities.

"Oh, that's for other people!" - Avid anti-gunner Jane Fonda, on being asked
why (when filing a police report when her home was burglarized of many guns)
SHE had so many guns including many restricted weapons.

[[email protected]]

Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
giving a free pass to criminals.
Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
hardly worth the experiment.

>
> Call me crazy but I'm still of the believe that if good, honest
> citizens were allowed to carry guns criminals would not feel so
> empowered to comment the types of weapons crimes we see today. When a
> city passes a law that guarantees that good citizens will not have
> guns the criminals get a free pass. I know some liberal who has never
> touched a gun before will find this offensive but the truth isn't
> always pretty.
>
> -Robert

[kontiki]

wrote:
> Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
> punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
> world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
> own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
> person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
> giving a free pass to criminals.
> Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
> controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
> culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
> Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
> hardly worth the experiment.
>

Criminals are actually treated like criminals in those countries.
And you're right... execution and long prison terms in very
unpleasant conditions are the penalties for crime. (Do they really
chop your hand off for stealing in some Arab countries?)

Anyway... in contrast, criminals in the US are coddled with
free health care... TV sets... probably live better than most
hard working people in Asian countries. Inmates get to sue their
victims and even the state if they don't like their conditions.
Hillary has even proposed that criminals should be able to vote.

As long as our criminal justice system is the way it is
people need and deserve a countermeasure... if they so choose.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:b9ohj.1912$7d1.821
@news01.roc.ny:

> wrote:
>> Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
>> punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
>> world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
>> own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
>> person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
>> giving a free pass to criminals.
>> Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
>> controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
>> culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
>> Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
>> hardly worth the experiment.
>>
>
> Criminals are actually treated like criminals in those countries.
> And you're right... execution and long prison terms in very
> unpleasant conditions are the penalties for crime. (Do they really
> chop your hand off for stealing in some Arab countries?)

Yes, and in some countries it's the death penalty for even realtively minor
crimes. The results across the globe are by no means empirical

Seems to work in some places and not in others.

Bertie

[PapparazziPete via AviationKB.com]

Grumman-581 wrote:

>
>So, where you from?
>
He's in Pooraka.

Saw him in the Virgin outlet with a commemorative boxed set of "Kevin Bloody
Wilson" out in Modbury.

But he was driving an Orix van so maybe he's on the move.

I'd say try Clarence Park.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"PapparazziPete via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7e036779b9154@uwe:

> Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>>
>>So, where you from?
>>
> He's in Pooraka.
>
> Saw him in the Virgin outlet with a commemorative boxed set of "Kevin
> Bloody Wilson" out in Modbury.
>
> But he was driving an Orix van so maybe he's on the move.
>
> I'd say try Clarence Park.
>

Quizling


Bertie

[PapparazziPete via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>So, where you from?
>>>
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> I'd say try Clarence Park.
>
>Quizling
>
>Bertie

Nah..not your type of neighborhood.

Maybe Jut. Parade?

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[PapparazziPete via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>So, where you from?
>>>
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> I'd say try Clarence Park.
>
>Quizling
>
>Bertie

methinks ya mean that Norse guy Quisling?

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"PapparazziPete via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7e039a9f4ee03@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>So, where you from?
>>>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>>
>>> I'd say try Clarence Park.
>>
>>Quizling
>>
>>Bertie
>
> methinks ya mean that Norse guy Quisling?
>

Yep.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"PapparazziPete via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7e038f78140e0@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>So, where you from?
>>>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>>
>>> I'd say try Clarence Park.
>>
>>Quizling
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Nah..not your type of neighborhood.
>
> Maybe Jut. Parade?
>

No, the other bertie lives there, I think


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
> punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
> world.

Well, it's harldly that safe, but it is a police state.

>Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
> own a gun other than to kill?

Were did you learn logic?

> And so they see no point in letting a
> person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
> giving a free pass to criminals.

Sounds like any other tyranny.

Thanks for showing your true side.

> Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
> controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
> culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
> Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
> hardly worth the experiment.

First and second generation Japanese in the the US have about the same
homicide rate as those in Japan.

Fella', you don't need to do experiments - you can use LOGIC (yes, the real
stuff, not the phoney stuff you allude to above) in conceptualization
(actually, you HAVE to use it, otherwise it's a "floating abstraction).

[[email protected]]

> Well, it's harldly that safe, but it is a police state.
>

> Were did you learn logic?

Certainly not where you learned to write.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
> punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
> world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
> own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
> person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
> giving a free pass to criminals.
> Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
> controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
> culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
> Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
> hardly worth the experiment.

And Japan has an almost 100% "confession" rate of people arrested. Do
you know what that is? Might want to do some homework before answering.

Matt

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>> Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
>> punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
>> world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
>> own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
>> person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
>> giving a free pass to criminals.
>> Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
>> controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
>> culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
>> Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
>> hardly worth the experiment.
>
> And Japan has an almost 100% "confession" rate of people arrested. Do
> you know what that is? Might want to do some homework before answering.

It's Jay's and your wet dream, that's what it is...

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Grumman-581 > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:43:48 -0800, William Hung wrote:
>>
>>> "All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers who
>>> thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What does
>>> that author have against Asians?
>> It's like asian food... Once you kill one, 30 minutes later, you feel a
>> need to kill another...
>
>
> A bit like texans then

Only better-smelling.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> I try not to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed... It's
> just not all that sporting, ya' know?

Not to mention fratricidal for a Texan.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

Punked again.

Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just a
troll.

He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough to
get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his typical whiny
insults, leaving you sputtering.

The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again illustrates
just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would wise up, though --
the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is through your replies.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 10:50 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
>
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 9, 6:36 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
> >> >> a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.
>
> >> > Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
> >> > ridicules extreme.
>
> >> It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
> >> of an
>
> >> organised hijacking.
>
> > So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
> > 9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
> > trained military soldiers??
>
> Nope.
>
> These guys had box cutters. The only way
>
> > they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
> > in which they would encounter minimum resistance.
>
> Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
> appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
> We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
> majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.
>
> But hey, why am I wasting time writing?
>
> You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

-Robert

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
> emotional investment in the issue.
>
> Punked again.
>
> Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just a
> troll.
>
> He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough
> to get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his typical
> whiny insults, leaving you sputtering.
>
> The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again illustrates
> just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would wise up, though
> -- the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is through your
> replies.

And yet you always seem to comment on it. Hmmmm....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:77Chj.294537$Fc.258655@attbi_s21:

> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
> emotional investment in the issue.
>
> Punked again.
>
> Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just
> a troll.
>
> He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough
> to get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his
> typical whiny insults, leaving you sputtering.
>

Nope.

I treat anyone who converses intelligently as such and anyone who doesn't,
well like I treat you.

> The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again
> illustrates just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would
> wise up, though -- the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is
> through your replies.


Yeah, right.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
>> someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
>> someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
>> reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
>> emotional investment in the issue.
>>
>> Punked again.
>>
>> Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just
>> a troll.
>>
>> He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long
>> enough to get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with
>> his typical whiny insults, leaving you sputtering.
>>
>> The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again
>> illustrates just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would
>> wise up, though -- the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore
>> is through your replies.
>
> And yet you always seem to comment on it. Hmmmm....
>

Well, first he says He's sure I'm not a pilot and then I am,

I'm of two minds to call work and tel them I can't come in til Jay resolves
this issue.

Bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

>>Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
>> own a gun other than to kill?

*cough* Hey, I'm trying to drink coffee here.

>> And so they see no point in letting a
>> person with a gun live.

"Letting" people live--particularly those who have caused no harm to
others--isn't a function of government in a free society.

-c

[dVaridel]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote
>"...The right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That's why I cut all the sleeves off my shirts ......


David


--
We had a quicksand box in our backyard. I was an only child, eventually.

[John Godwin]

"dVaridel" > wrote in news:47880988$0
:

> That's why I cut all the sleeves off my shirts ......

Thats bare .. bare .. bare :-)

--

[Big John]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:55:00 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> I'm not a bleeding heart . I have a gun and I would use it if I had to.
>> but arming every second asshole on the streets is not a way to stem violent
>> crime.
>
>Why not? An armed society is a polite society.

Jay

When did you get in the aviation business? Were you trying to post to
the TX FM Society and miss-posted?

Big John

[[email protected]]

>
> *cough* Hey, I'm trying to drink coffee here.
>

Try drinking some Kool-Aid instead.


> "Letting" people live--particularly those who have caused no harm to
> others--isn't a function of government in a free society.

If I thought your IQ was any better than a mountain goat's I would
have engaged you in a discussion!