Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
stuff.

The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.

Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
constitution.

Jonjon

In
news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com
jonatthehelm@gmail.com wrote: 

> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.

Well, you get busy on that, won't you?

Tell us how it works out for you.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

wrote in message 
news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon

 You are the one that is misguided ...

wrote in message
news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
> people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
> they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
> weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
> defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
> stuff.
>
> The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
> one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
> the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
> the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
> allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
> people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
> own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
> thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
> guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
> owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
> organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
> them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
> around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
> use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
>
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon


          Not very bright are thee??

On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> > constitution.
>
> > Jonjon
>
>  You are the one that is misguided ...

Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.

Jonjon

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:20:00 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
wrote:

>Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
>people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
>they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
>weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
>defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
>stuff.
>
>The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
>one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
>the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
>the government has got the military they have.

Interesting thought. I'll make you a deal.  I live in So. Calif.  At
this very moment, a gang of thugs is trying to kick down my front
door.  They're not armed with guns; just baseball bats, knives,
razorblades, a powersaw, and battery acid.  Their intent is what's
euphemistically called a "home invasion."   They plan to rape my lady,
eat my cat, steal everything that I own, and then kill me.  And then
tomorrow night, they're heading to your house.  Can you make me the
following guarantee?

1.  I'll have the time to get to a phone, and call 911.

2.  The police and the  "military like the one we've got today" will
get to my home in time to save me and my family.

If you can show me that guarantee, I'll melt down my guns, shave my
head, and pass out flowers at the airport.  But if you can't assure me
that I'm safe, then perhaps you need to rethink your position.  Your
life might not mean a lot to you, but do you have the right to turn me
into a victim?  

Nobody is requiring you to buy a gun, but the situation I described
above is happening to people everyday.  I'd like to hear your honest
response to my concerns.  d'Art.
-- 

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, because 
you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.

In news:qg8a64d1o17pca61enosq4v5pcm36kabl4@4ax.com
d'Artagnan@hushmail.com wrote: 

> Can you make me the following guarantee?
> 
> 1.  I'll have the time to get to a phone, and call 911.
> 
> 2.  The police and the  "military like the one we've got today" will
> get to my home in time to save me and my family.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

wrote in message 
news:e678c2fd-3586-4a7c-b14c-bfceafd69945@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> , it was an entirely different story. That
> supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
> relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
> lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet.

The CONSTITUTION was not written just to be applied at that time. If you 
read it, you can understand better what you seem to know so little about. It 
is the only document ever written that has lasted and stood the test of time 
for as long as it has. If you STUPID liberals who want to write everything 
to apply happenstance (spelling), don't like living here under the 
Constitution, then you are very welcome to leave and anyone else who 
believes as you whether legal or illegal or otherwise are very free to do 
the same......BTW, you are guaranteed this right by the same piece of paper 
you show no respect for, in case you didn't know it was written in it also. 
It is called freedom or liberty whichever term you like.

> Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
> plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
> these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
> weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
> any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
> on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
> constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
> supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
> relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
> lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
> just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
> not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
> support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
> can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
> they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
> stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.
>
> Jonjon

So, you know exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant back in 
1791, and apparently they did not mean anything they said back then because 
it was a different time.  Nothing applies to the year 2008?

They couldn't have meant freedom of religion for all religions, and freedom 
of the press to say what they want?  Watergate should have been kept a 
secret, right? (Amendment 1)

Hey, you're an American, right? You don't mind if soldiers bust down your 
door and hang out in times of war. Yes, they saw fit to prevent that  in an 
amendment, but it's 2008.  We don't need that one anymore? (Amendment 3)

And a real American would have nothing to hide, so having someone search 
their home without permission wouldn't bother you, would it?  Maybe they'll 
find a gun or two?  I mean, they made that back in 1791 and it's 2008.  They 
couldn't have possibly been thinking ahead, could they? (Amendment 4)

And how could they have known that someone might want to put a freeway 
through your backyard back in 1791.  They couldn't have possible been 
thinking that far ahead. (Amendment 5)

And who needs a lawyer and an impartial jury?  Maybe back in 1792, but in 
2008?  No way. (Amendment 6)

The list goes on and on, covering every amendment to the Constitution.  I 
think they knew what they were doing back then.  And, if you read Scalia's 
decision all the way through, you will find that he went back and looked at 
all the amendments, plus how the language was used back then to bring things 
up to the present before making his decision.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
>> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
>> > constitution.
>>
>> > Jonjon
>>
>>  You are the one that is misguided ...
>
>Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
>plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
>these sorts of things. 


Wring: According to treverboy, there are about 80,000 DGU's per
year.....

In
news:e678c2fd-3586-4a7c-b14c-bfceafd69945@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com
jonatthehelm@gmail.com wrote: 

> Come on. Let's be honest. 

Hmm...

> Guns are only needed for having fun, plinking, target shooting,
> collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and these sorts of things.

"ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF
SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN" Kleck & Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (Northwestern) Guns and Violence Symposium, vol. 86, no.
1, 1995: 150.

       "The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2
        are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that
        rely on Rs' firsthand accounts of their own experiences
        (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first
        two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there
        are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs [Defensive Gun Use] of all
        types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9
        million of the incidents involving use of handguns."

"THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN
USE ESTIMATE DOWN" Kleck & Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (Northwestern) 87 (1997): 1446. 


-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

>Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
>the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
>constitution.

I think we can agree that criminal misuse of guns is the problem.
getting guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens doesn't solve the
problem, because it doesn't address it. The UK outlawed private
possession of handguns 11 years ago, yet the criminal misuse of them
has DOUBLED since then. Apologists for the ban say it was never about
crime. What was it about then?

                                               Bill Smith

In article <e678c2fd-3586-4a7c-b14c-bfceafd69945
@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, jonatthehelm@gmail.com says...
> On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
> >  wrote in message
> >
> > news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> > > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> > > constitution.
> >
> > > Jonjon
> >
> >  You are the one that is misguided ...
> 
> Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
> plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
> these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
> weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
> any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
> on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
> constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
> supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
> relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
> lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
> just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
> not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
> support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
> can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
> they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
> stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.

You know you really don't need to be secure in your home or person.
Why don't you work to do away with that one while you are at it ?

-- 

"Oh Norman, listen!  The loons are calling!"
   - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

">> supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
>> relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
>> lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet.
>
> The CONSTITUTION was not written just to be applied at that time. If you 
> read it, you can understand better what you seem to know so little about. 
> It is the only document ever written that has lasted and stood the test of 
> time for as long as it has. If you STUPID liberals who want to write 
> everything to apply happenstance (spelling), don't like living here under 
> the Constitution, then you are very welcome to leave and anyone else who 
> believes as you whether legal or illegal or otherwise are very free to do 
> the same......BTW, you are guaranteed this right by the same piece of 
> paper you show no respect for, in case you didn't know it was written in 
> it also. It is called freedom or liberty whichever term you like.


Bottom line for those that can not read nor understand plain written 
words........the word posterity is written in the Preamble......I believe 
that this pretty much explains what the framers of the Constitution meant.
>
>

wrote in message 
news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court,
<nonsense snipped>
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon

Well Jonjon, If you don't like guns kept in the home for personal 
protection, Don't keep a gun in your house. It's that simple.
Matter of fact, Why don't you put a big sign on your front door that says 
"NO GUNS KEPT IN THIS HOUSE."?
I wonder how long it would take before you would change your opinion.

Jack Cassidy.

wrote in message 
news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
> people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
> they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
> weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
> defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
> stuff.
>
> The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
> one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
> the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
> the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
> allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
> people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
> own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
> thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
> guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
> owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
> organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
> them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
> around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
> use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
>
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon


First of all, militias, as envisioned by the Framers, were there to be used 
AGAINST the government (and its Army) when that government (and its Army) 
trampled on the rights of its citizens.  The 'military like the one we've 
got today' is irrelevant --- it is NOT going to protect you against 
criminals.  You HAVE heard of 'posse commitatus?'

Second, "Congress is going to have to do some thing (sic) to get rid of guns 
out of the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the 
constitution (sic)."   Poor sentence construction aside, what you're 
advocating (just like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her early 
writings) is the removal of the Constitution as the guarantor of our 
freedoms.  If you would have bothered to read the Constitution, you would've 
discovered that Congress just can't rewrite the Constitution, any amendment 
MUST BE RATIFIED by the state legislatures of 2/3 of the states.  Do you 
really believe that 34 states will vote to remove people's rights?

You also do realize that the police are only good for after the fact (they 
are called/show up AFTER the crime is committed)?  That doesn't do you much 
good AFTER you've been killed, does it?  Or after your wife/girlfriend is 
raped, does it?

The problem with liberals/socialists in this country is none of them have 
actually bothered to read history, they only go by what they're told by 
other uninformed liberals/socialists.

Maybe you should go live in a country where people are not allowed to own 
guns, like the UK where crime rates are soaring.

I bet the first time the government tramples on your rights, you'll be 
squealing like a stuck pig about your 'constitutional rights.'   Oh wait, 
the government took them away.  Ooops!

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
>> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
>> > constitution.
>>
>> > Jonjon
>>
>>  You are the one that is misguided ...
>
>Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
>plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
>these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
>weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
>any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
>on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
>constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
>supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
>relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
>lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
>just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
>not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
>support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
>can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
>they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
>stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.
>
>Jonjon

I like this idea better.....
http://www.controlarms.org/events/destruction-day-2005/bulldozer.jpg

On 27 Jun 2008 18:11:15 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:

>In news:qg8a64d1o17pca61enosq4v5pcm36kabl4@4ax.com
>d'Artagnan@hushmail.com wrote: 
>
>> Can you make me the following guarantee?
>> 
>> 1.  I'll have the time to get to a phone, and call 911.
>> 
>> 2.  The police and the  "military like the one we've got today" will
>> get to my home in time to save me and my family.
>
>Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Words spoken by a TROLL

destroy-all-guns@yahooo.com wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2008 18:11:15 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:
> 
>> In news:qg8a64d1o17pca61enosq4v5pcm36kabl4@4ax.com
>> d'Artagnan@hushmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>> Can you make me the following guarantee?
>>>
>>> 1.  I'll have the time to get to a phone, and call 911.
>>>
>>> 2.  The police and the  "military like the one we've got today" will
>>> get to my home in time to save me and my family.
>> Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
> 
> Words spoken by a TROLL 

Actually these are the true facts.

I have been there where the police were needed in seconds, once they 
arrived 17 min. late, the other time was 24 min. late.

Thank God I was armed both times, or I would not be writing this post, 
or any post, ever


-- 
SpecTastic Wiggle Rig,
Fishing lure remote control
See lure video you won't believe
http://ezknot.com/videos.html

wrote in message
news:ttke641k9u7puhgib224mp19fik0usovsk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>
> >>
news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> >> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> >> > constitution.
> >>
> >> > Jonjon
> >>
> >>  You are the one that is misguided ...
> >
> >Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
> >plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
> >these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
> >weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
> >any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
> >on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
> >constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
> >supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
> >relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
> >lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
> >just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
> >not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
> >support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
> >can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
> >they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
> >stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.
> >
> >Jonjon
>
> I like this idea better.....
> http://www.controlarms.org/events/destruction-day-2005/bulldozer.jpg

Jonjon: Why the baby name? Are you some 12 year old who attends a special
school?? Why don't YOU lie down on that pile of guns. God help us if you
reproduce. You just don't want to get it, do you? Many of us gun users
aren't trying to say the second amendment is clearly written. It's not,
especially considering today's society. Several have suggested throwing it
out and passing a new one. This one would give anyone in the US the right to
carry anywhere except perhaps on an airplane or dangerous place if there was
an accident. We don't need guns to stop the British from invading. We know
that, moron. We want and need our guns to stop home invasions and muggers. A
study here in Florida showed that 2.5 million crimes were prevented because
the victim pulled a gun, showed a gun, or fired a warning shot. Most times
the gun isn't even fired. So no one got killed. If the victim had no gun,
what do you think the bad guy would have done?? You're so keen on the law
and the amendments. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police cannot be
sued if you get shot. Their job is crime investigation AFTER you're shot and
perhaps by driving around, making a bad guy hide for five minutes before
jumping out and mugging a different target. About 20,000 people are killed
by guns each year. And 2.5 million are saved by guns. How the hell can you
defend taking guns from us? Do gun laws stop the bad guys?? Gun laws only
make more victims, sometimes dead victims. I hope someday you are mugged and
some guy with a permit runs up and pulls his gun and takes care of the bad
guy who has a knife at your throat. I bet you'd change your tune then. In
any event, we are keeping our guns whether you like it or not.
>

wrote in message news:ttke641k9u7puhgib224mp19fik0usovsk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> >> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> >> > constitution.
> >>
> >> > Jonjon
> >>
> >>  You are the one that is misguided ...
> >
> >Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
> >plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
> >these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
> >weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
> >any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
> >on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
> >constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
> >supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
> >relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
> >lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
> >just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
> >not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
> >support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
> >can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
> >they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
> >stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.
> >
> >Jonjon
>
> I like this idea better.....
> http://www.controlarms.org/events/destruction-day-2005/bulldozer.jpg


             Yea fool that might happen....... Not
>

wrote in message news:02le64ta5ajnuim8p0e6qoa0gd7orq168g@4ax.com...
> On 27 Jun 2008 18:11:15 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:
>
> >In news:qg8a64d1o17pca61enosq4v5pcm36kabl4@4ax.com
> >d'Artagnan@hushmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Can you make me the following guarantee?
> >>
> >> 1.  I'll have the time to get to a phone, and call 911.
> >>
> >> 2.  The police and the  "military like the one we've got today" will
> >> get to my home in time to save me and my family.
> >
> >Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
>
> Words spoken by a TROLL


       Troll???  You're the dipshit troll, fool... This is a gun group.
Its amazing how much stupid you can pack in 1 person.

wrote in message 
news:ttke641k9u7puhgib224mp19fik0usovsk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
>>>  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
>>> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
>>> > constitution.
>>>
>>> > Jonjon
>>>
>>>  You are the one that is misguided ...
>>
>>Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
>>plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
>>these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
>>weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
>>any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
>>on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
>>constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
>>supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
>>relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
>>lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
>>just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
>>not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
>>support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
>>can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
>>they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
>>stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.
>>
>>Jonjon
>
> I like this idea better.....
> http://www.controlarms.org/events/destruction-day-2005/bulldozer.jpg
>
What do you think really happens to guns that are turned in?  When I was a 
liberal teenager I turned in a handgun that my mom found in our basement. 
Feeling proud that I had just done a good deed, and taken one more gun off 
the streets, I ask the policeman at the desk what was going to happen to 
it -- how it was going to be destroyed.  His reply was that one of the 
officers would keep it.  So much for your plan to destroy all guns.  And 
stupid liberal that I was, I lost a piece of our families history.

In article , destroy-all-
guns@yahooo.com says...
> On 27 Jun 2008 18:11:15 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:
> 
> >In news:qg8a64d1o17pca61enosq4v5pcm36kabl4@4ax.com
> >d'Artagnan@hushmail.com wrote: 
> >
> >> Can you make me the following guarantee?
> >> 
> >> 1.  I'll have the time to get to a phone, and call 911.
> >> 
> >> 2.  The police and the  "military like the one we've got today" will
> >> get to my home in time to save me and my family.
> >
> >Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
> 
> Words spoken by a TROLL 

Stick with your denial.
You can put it on your tombstone.

-- 

"Oh Norman, listen!  The loons are calling!"
   - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:32:50 -0600, "Sheldon"
 wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:ttke641k9u7puhgib224mp19fik0usovsk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT), jonatthehelm@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 27, 8:22 am, "junkman"  wrote:
>>>>  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:83cee385-1846-43f5-8640-a5793ed73ef7@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
>>>> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
>>>> > constitution.
>>>>
>>>> > Jonjon
>>>>
>>>>  You are the one that is misguided ...
>>>
>>>Come on. Let's be honest. Guns are only needed for having fun,
>>>plinking, target shooting, collecting, as a hobbyist's passion, and
>>>these sorts of things. There is no need to equip the citizenry with
>>>weapons to allow for a standing militia. We're not going to be seeing
>>>any action of the type where people come with weapons, starting wars,
>>>on this continent. It ain't gonna happen. Back in the days the
>>>constitution was written, it was an entirely different story. That
>>>supreme court justices are so fucking stupid to pretend there is
>>>relevance in what the constitution says to today, is just about the
>>>lamest brained bunch of folks, any where on this planet. They're all
>>>just doing a toung in cheek joke on every one, cause they know it is
>>>not going to be a serious issue, for any one, as there is so much
>>>support for gun ownership. They aren't worried, and they know they
>>>can't change any thing. They're just fucking around, and that means,
>>>they are not doing their job. Over seas folks must be laughing at how
>>>stupid the monkey court of supreme justices do their work.
>>>
>>>Jonjon
>>
>> I like this idea better.....
>> http://www.controlarms.org/events/destruction-day-2005/bulldozer.jpg
>>
>What do you think really happens to guns that are turned in?  When I was a 
>liberal teenager I turned in a handgun that my mom found in our basement. 
>Feeling proud that I had just done a good deed, and taken one more gun off 
>the streets, I ask the policeman at the desk what was going to happen to 
>it -- how it was going to be destroyed.  His reply was that one of the 
>officers would keep it.  So much for your plan to destroy all guns.  And 
>stupid liberal that I was, I lost a piece of our families history. 
>

It sounds like you had a good upbringing.  What happened to turn you
into a gun slinging maniac murderer?  Would some mental health therapy
help bring you back?  Or maybe it's too late !!!!!
If your mother only knew what a scumbag you have become, she would
(and should) kick your ass.


------
Attn Gun owners: Do the world a favor - Shoot Yourself !!!!

wrote in message
news:tlqg641bhe38ursh4pvlpofa289m97h2g9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:32:50 -0600, "Sheldon"
>  wrote:
>

> >What do you think really happens to guns that are turned in?  When I was
a
> >liberal teenager I turned in a handgun that my mom found in our basement.
> >Feeling proud that I had just done a good deed, and taken one more gun
off
> >the streets, I ask the policeman at the desk what was going to happen to
> >it -- how it was going to be destroyed.  His reply was that one of the
> >officers would keep it.  So much for your plan to destroy all guns.  And
> >stupid liberal that I was, I lost a piece of our families history.
> >
>
> It sounds like you had a good upbringing.  What happened to turn you
> into a gun slinging maniac murderer?  Would some mental health therapy
> help bring you back?  Or maybe it's too late !!!!!
> If your mother only knew what a scumbag you have become, she would
> (and should) kick your ass.
>
>
> ------
> Attn Gun owners: Do the world a favor - Shoot Yourself !!!!

ASSHOLE, he said he turned the gun in. How can he be a murderer?? God, a
hemorrhoid has more intelligence than you do. Gun slinging? Oh, yeah, I walk
around all day "slinging" my gun. I have a degree in Psych. YOU are the one
who should be locked up. You called him a scumbag even though he turned the
gun in like you claim you want everyone to do?? I hope someone kicks your
ass, maybe in a state that allows carry permits, and I'd stand there and let
the thug beat you to death and not draw my gun since you don't approve of
guns. I wonder how tough you'd be with no teeth. Well, maybe you shouldn't
get your ass kicked. I wouldn't want you to get a headache.

"Bill Smith"  wrote in message 
news:6r5b64dn4fq8gpmc7e91qq0p16ni661adi@4ax.com...
>
>  The UK outlawed private
> possession of handguns 11 years ago, yet the criminal misuse of them
> has DOUBLED since then. Apologists for the ban say it was never about
> crime. What was it about then?
>
It is claimed that it was about preventing a massacre by a legally held 
firearm.  But how many of those happen?  It is certainly not what was said 
at the time.  Alun Michael, the man responsible for getting the pistol ban 
through Parliament, said in the House of Commons, 'by ths measure, we take 
guns off the streets'.  But the guns he was banning were not on the streets, 
they were locked in safes and registered on licences.  The real reason why 
the ban happened was because an unpopular government was coming to the end 
of its term and it was necessary to enact a large dramatic law in response 
to the Dunblane shootings.  Its effectiveness was irrelevant.  It was about 
political popularity.  It didn't work.  The Tories lost the election later 
that year.

On Jun 27, 10:20 am, jonattheh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
> people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
> they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
> weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
> defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
> stuff.
>
> The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
> one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
> the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
> the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
> allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
> people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
> own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
> thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
> guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
> owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
> organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
> them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
> around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
> use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
>
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon

Many of the founding fathers were against the establishment of a
standing army prefering to rely solely on militia for defense. They
feared a standing army would permit a repressive government to trample
upon the very freedoms they had fought to establish. They knew that
the best guarantor of liberty was an armed citizenry. As such,
virtually every able bodied man was considered to be a member of the
militia and was responsible for arming himself. Every man who could
shoulder a musket also shouldered the responsibitity to defend himself
and his neighbors against all threats, both foreign and domestic.

The fact that the United States has evolved into a military superpower
has not changed that presumption one bit. Citizens still bear the
ultimate responsibility for their own safety. Those who choose to
abdicate that responsibility to the police, do so at their own peril.
That is an excercise in self delusion. Those who have placed their
faith in their government to take care of them in times of trouble
have suffered the consequences time and again. The citizens of New
Orleans counted on their government to take care of them in the wake
of Katrina. The students and faculty at Virginia Tech were required to
place their safety in the hands of the campus police. Those really
worked out well, didn't they.

The responsible citizen doesn't rely solely on the government for the
safety of himself and his family. He assumes that responsibity for
himself, or herself. Perhaps you live next door to a donut shop and
have the expectation that the police will be nearby when you need
them. As for me, if someone tries to invade my home, I will reach for
my gun before I reach for my phone. I would much rather call police to
tell them about the intruder I just shot then tell them about the one
who was about to shoot me.

On Jun 27, 9:20 am, jonattheh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
> people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
> they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
> weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
> defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
> stuff.
>
> The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
> one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
> the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
> the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
> allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
> people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
> own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
> thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
> guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
> owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
> organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
> them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
> around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
> use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
>
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon

On Jun 27, 9:20 am, jonattheh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
> people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
> they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
> weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
> defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
> stuff.
>
> The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
> one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
> the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
> the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
> allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
> people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
> own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
> thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
> guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
> owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
> organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
> them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
> around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
> use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
>
> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> constitution.
>
> Jonjon

I don't think there is enough text space to reply to this post and
correct all of the leftist propaganda put in your head by idiots or
pinkos. But then after seeing your profile I doubt you would want to
accept the facts if they where presented to you anyway. First of all
you will have to come down from that meditated state of mind or
whatever you Gurus fret yourselves into and get back to the real world
where politicians act only on their own interests, police cannot and
are not even hired to protect you as an individual and your freedoms
are not immune from being removed by a bunch of national and
international policy makers who don't give a damn about your beliefs
or lifestyles if they interfere with their agendas. You like being a
Guru ? Fine, your probably a good one and I won't interfere with your
life or liberties. I am a gun owner, and a good one as I don't go
around threating people with it, my pocket knife, steak knife,
cordless drill or anything else I could use as a weapon. So, don't
interfere with my liberties either. Do have a great day

wrote in message
news:b2b1c708-46c4-48a7-a53d-b221154de04c@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 9:20 am, jonattheh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
> > people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
> > they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
> > weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
> > defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
> > stuff.
> >
> > The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
> > one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
> > the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
> > the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
> > allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
> > people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
> > own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
> > thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
> > guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
> > owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
> > organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
> > them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
> > around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
> > use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
> >
> > Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
> > the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
> > constitution.
> >
> > Jonjon
>
> I don't think there is enough text space to reply to this post and
> correct all of the leftist propaganda put in your head by idiots or
> pinkos. But then after seeing your profile I doubt you would want to
> accept the facts if they where presented to you anyway. First of all
> you will have to come down from that meditated state of mind or
> whatever you Gurus fret yourselves into and get back to the real world
> where politicians act only on their own interests, police cannot and
> are not even hired to protect you as an individual and your freedoms
> are not immune from being removed by a bunch of national and
> international policy makers who don't give a damn about your beliefs
> or lifestyles if they interfere with their agendas. You like being a
> Guru ? Fine, your probably a good one and I won't interfere with your
> life or liberties. I am a gun owner, and a good one as I don't go
> around threating people with it, my pocket knife, steak knife,
> cordless drill or anything else I could use as a weapon. So, don't
> interfere with my liberties either. Do have a great day

I also have had all your meditation shit in my face on many newsgroups that
used to be good. First of all, post your crap in groups where it belongs,
not suicide or gun groups. Unless you are going to use a gun to kill
yourself. I carry a gun and have a permit. We are a family of policemen and
military people. Guns save more lives by far than the amount of lives lost
to guns when used by criminals. If you are so cerebral, you should already
know this.

I agree that there isn't enough space to set you straight. But more
importantly, you aren't worth it, either on the gun topic or the tantric
bullshit. Why don't you call your home planet and ask the spaceship to pick
you up ASAP?? You're just contaminating the earth and we don't need you. For
someone who claims to pick up all the vibes from women and other situations,
you did a poor job this time.

In news:487943fc$0$18090$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com "Florida NRA
SW"  wrote: 

> I also have had all your meditation shit in my face on many newsgroups

Get a newsreader with decent filtering and learn to use it.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

Jonjon...now there's a very adult name. Did your mommy type your entry for 
you? And when you're old enough to drive, try Teddy Kennedy. He's really 
good. Ask Mary Jo. Oh, my, you can't.

pws
 wrote in message 
news:591faf75-75c7-4ae4-b0f2-a10626582cda@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 9:20 am, jonattheh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Have you ever heard of a more misguided supreme court, voting to allow
>> people to own guns, just cause the framers of the constitution said
>> they needed a militia, and for that purpose, home owners could keep a
>> weapon/weapons for use for the purposes of fighting in the militia to
>> defend the district, town, state, or whatever. That's the most absurd
>> stuff.
>>
>> The 'intelligent' framers never expected to see a military like the
>> one we've got today. If they had, they would delete that stuff from
>> the constitution, since there is no need for people to own guns, if
>> the government has got the military they have. It's sheer idiocy,
>> allowing people to own guns. Guns kill people, and maim and scar
>> people, ruin people's lives. It's sheer absurdity, allowing people to
>> own guns for their hobbiest enthusiasms, though that is not a bad
>> thing, being a hobbist, but there's got to be a better way to control
>> guns, and they know they can do it. The Japanese do, for personal
>> owners of weapons, even though the Chinese feed guns to the members of
>> organized crime in Japan, it's more of a status symbol, as no one uses
>> them. They don't need to. These guys, loan sharks mob types, who go
>> around in groups terrorizing people, only use guns to threaten. They
>> use their fists/hands/feet to deal with tardy loan repayment clients.
>>
>> Congress is going to have to do some thing to get rid of guns out of
>> the hands of ordinary citizens, even if that means rewriting the
>> constitution.
>>
>> Jonjon
>