Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?

To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!







> Palin's teenage daughter pregnant
>
> Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, newly picked as Republican John McCain's
> running mate, has revealed that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
>
> Mrs Palin, a social conservative who is opposed to abortion, said in a
> statement her daughter Bristol would keep the child and marry its
> father.
> The Alaska governor, a mother-of-five, was presented three days ago
> as her party's vice-presidential candidate.
>
> The McCain campaign and Palins asked for respect for the family's
> privacy.
> Mrs Palin and her husband Todd said in a statement: "Bristol and the
> young man she will marry are going to realise very quickly the
> difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love
> and support of our entire family."
>
> Advisers to the McCain campaign said they had known about the
> pregnancy before offering Mrs Palin the vice-presidential nomination.
>
> The BBC's Justin Webb in St Paul, where the Republicans' national
> convention is taking place this week, says the news will certainly be
> a talking point but may not damage Mrs Palin's standing.
>
> She was brought on board to appeal to social conservatives, our
> correspondent says, and they may respect the decision by her daughter
> to keep the baby and to marry the father.
>
> However, some people in the party who already had concerns about the
> lack of knowledge about Mrs Palin's record may fear what other
> revelations lie in wait, our correspondent adds.
>
> The party's four-day convention opens on Monday but its schedule has
> been curtailed because of the threat of Hurricane Gustav to states on
> the southern US coast.
>
> Mrs Palin is due to be formally nominated by delegates as the party's
> vice-presidential choice later this week.
>
> She was elected governor of Alaska in 2006 and before that was mayor
> of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska.

> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>
> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!

You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend 
themselves.
Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's "highly 
evolved" society, right?

How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has, and is 
willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal gain?

Mr. Albritton wrote:
>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>
>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>
> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
> themselves.
> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
> "highly evolved" society, right?

And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?

> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has, and
> is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal gain?

Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?

>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>> themselves.
>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>
> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?

What the hell kind of response is that?
Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is exactly 
why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY defend the 
safety and well-being of their own children.

>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has, and
>> is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal gain?
>
> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?

I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
Why?
Because gun control doesn't work.
The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are written.

You still haven't answered the question:
How do you propose to defend yourself against a criminal who already has a 
gun?

Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>>> themselves.
>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>>
>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>
> What the hell kind of response is that?
> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.

And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
them, eh jackass?


>
>>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
>>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
>>> gain?
>>
>> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
>
> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
> Why?
> Because gun control doesn't work.
> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are written.

So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?

And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?

And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?

And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?

Glad you cleared that up, clown.

>>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>>>> themselves.
>>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>>>
>>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>>
>> What the hell kind of response is that?
>> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
>> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
>> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
>
> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
> them, eh jackass?

Being that individual is a parent, that individual should be able to carry a 
firearm to defend self and child.

>>
>>>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
>>>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
>>>> gain?
>>>
>>> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
>>
>> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
>> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
>> Why?
>> Because gun control doesn't work.
>> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are written.
>
> So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
> ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?

Yes.

> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?

Yes.

> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
> in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?

Yes.

> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
> misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?

Yes.

> Glad you cleared that up, clown.

Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY knows that 
EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally draw a weapon will 
be gunned down.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look 
upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

As John Steinbeck once said .
  1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll 
just kill you.

  2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

  3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

  4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

"Reality_Check©" wrote:

> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>

or penuses?



>
> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>
> > Palin's teenage daughter pregnant
> >
> > Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, newly picked as Republican John McCain's
> > running mate, has revealed that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
> >
> > Mrs Palin, a social conservative who is opposed to abortion, said in a
> > statement her daughter Bristol would keep the child and marry its
> > father.
> > The Alaska governor, a mother-of-five, was presented three days ago
> > as her party's vice-presidential candidate.
> >
> > The McCain campaign and Palins asked for respect for the family's
> > privacy.
> > Mrs Palin and her husband Todd said in a statement: "Bristol and the
> > young man she will marry are going to realise very quickly the
> > difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love
> > and support of our entire family."
> >
> > Advisers to the McCain campaign said they had known about the
> > pregnancy before offering Mrs Palin the vice-presidential nomination.
> >
> > The BBC's Justin Webb in St Paul, where the Republicans' national
> > convention is taking place this week, says the news will certainly be
> > a talking point but may not damage Mrs Palin's standing.
> >
> > She was brought on board to appeal to social conservatives, our
> > correspondent says, and they may respect the decision by her daughter
> > to keep the baby and to marry the father.
> >
> > However, some people in the party who already had concerns about the
> > lack of knowledge about Mrs Palin's record may fear what other
> > revelations lie in wait, our correspondent adds.
> >
> > The party's four-day convention opens on Monday but its schedule has
> > been curtailed because of the threat of Hurricane Gustav to states on
> > the southern US coast.
> >
> > Mrs Palin is due to be formally nominated by delegates as the party's
> > vice-presidential choice later this week.
> >
> > She was elected governor of Alaska in 2006 and before that was mayor
> > of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska.

"Mr. Albritton"  wrote in message 
news:g9iaad$52q$1@registered.motzarella.org...
| >> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >> themselves.
| >> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >
| > And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
|
| What the hell kind of response is that?
| Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is exactly
| why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY defend the
| safety and well-being of their own children.
|
| >> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has, and
| >> is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal gain?
| >
| > Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
|
| I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
| EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
| Why?
| Because gun control doesn't work.
| The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are written.
|
| You still haven't answered the question:
| How do you propose to defend yourself against a criminal who already has a
| gun?

He'll probably squeal like a little girl then drop to his knees begging the 
criminal to not hurt him.

GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and 
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman 
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.


|
|

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
| Mr. Albritton wrote:
| >>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >>> themselves.
| >>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >>
| >> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| >
| > What the hell kind of response is that?
| > Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
| > exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
| > defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
|
| And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
| them, eh jackass?

I had a gun when I was 17. You grew up in the city didn't you?

(sheer stupidity snipped)

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

David Moffitt wrote:
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
> news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>>>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>>>>
>>>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>>>
>>> What the hell kind of response is that?
>>> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
>>> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
>>> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
>>
>> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
>> them, eh jackass?
>
> I had a gun when I was 17.

Prove it.


>You grew up in the city didn't you?

You're lying again.

Reality_Check© wrote:

>> I had a gun when I was 17.

I had one at 12
> 
> Prove it.

What do you want my dad to post here telling I did ?

My son got his first one at 10.

I hereby swear that is true, and if I look around here I will find 
photo's of him with his gun.

My grand daughter got hers at 9, she now has two of them

Don't believe me ?  here is her getting it for Christmas 2006

http://ezknot.com/kgun.jpg

That was a single shot 22, Christmas 07 she had earned a .243 because of 
her safe handling and shooting of the 22

When she hunts with us she carries her rifle loaded, and in her total 
control. I trust her more than most adults I hunt with


> 


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

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i3n9sFo98s4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>
>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>
>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>> themselves.
>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>
> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>
>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has, and
>> is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal gain?
>
> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
>
>
only if they are felons.

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>>>> themselves.
>>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>>>
>>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>>
>> What the hell kind of response is that?
>> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
>> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
>> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
>
> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
> them, eh jackass?
>
>
>>
My child is 11 and shows excellent trigger control and decent aim at the 
range, fully supervised. I bet when she is 17 she would be fully capable of 
being armed, if legal. I would support arming of 17 years old with 
restrictions, just like a driver license has restrictions at that age.

>>>
>>> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
>>> them, eh jackass?
>>
>> I had a gun when I was 17.
>
> Prove it.
>
>
Why is that hard to believe? My girl is 11 and she has had a rifle since she 
was 9. She currently has a Savage .22 and Beretta NEOS semi-auto .22 pistol. 
They are locked in my safe unless we are going to the range but they belong 
to her. She is not some tomboy either having been on a cheer squad since she 
was 9 as well.

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i3ieqFohnjcU1@mid.individual.net...
> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>
> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>
>
>
>
>
>
snip
Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child abuse to 
have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted with firearms.

Rodney Long  wrote in news:NKbvk.25736$Fr1.4277
@newsfe03.iad:

> Reality_Check© wrote:
> 
>>> I had a gun when I was 17.
> 
> I had one at 12
>> 
>> Prove it.
> 
> What do you want my dad to post here telling I did ?
> 
> My son got his first one at 10.
> 
> I hereby swear that is true, and if I look around here I will find 
> photo's of him with his gun.
> 
> My grand daughter got hers at 9, she now has two of them
> 
> Don't believe me ?  here is her getting it for Christmas 2006
> 
> http://ezknot.com/kgun.jpg
> 
> That was a single shot 22, Christmas 07 she had earned a .243 because of 
> her safe handling and shooting of the 22
> 
> When she hunts with us she carries her rifle loaded, and in her total 
> control. I trust her more than most adults I hunt with
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> 

I got my first at 8. A single shot Remington .22. Still have it.

-- 
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

"Wayne"  wrote in message
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>
>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>
>>
> snip
> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child abuse to have 
> a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted with firearms.

Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess firearms
on their own, now does it?

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>
>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>
>>>
>> snip
>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child abuse to have 
>> a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted with firearms.
> 
> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess firearms
> on their own, now does it?

Neither can they purchase land, or a car, or sign any contract at that 
age, BIG DEAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This has nothing to do with gun crime or violence, only the use of guns 
to "save" lives, and protect from violent acts, such as rape, and assault




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

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6i58l8Fou0s1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>
>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>
>>>
>> snip
>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child abuse to 
>> have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted with firearms.
>
> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess firearms
> on their own, now does it?
>
Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out 
whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs" to the 
kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> "Wayne"  wrote in message
> 
>>"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>
>>>Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>
>>>To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>snip
>>Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child abuse to have 
>>a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted with firearms.
> 
> 
> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess firearms
> on their own, now does it?


Yes, it does.

How long have you been retarded?

Wayne wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>
>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>
>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> snip
>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>> with firearms.
>>
>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>
> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.

Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman purchase.

David Finck wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>
>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>
>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>> with firearms.
>>
>>
>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>
>
> Yes, it does.

Do tell.

>
> How long have you been retarded?

How long have you been ignorant?

RM V2.0 wrote:
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
> news:6i3n9sFo98s4U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>
>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>
>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>>> themselves.
>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>>
>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>>
>>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
>>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
>>> gain?
>>
>> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
>>
>>
> only if they are felons.

So you support possession of firearms by the Mentally Ill, Drunkards
and Drug Addicts, eh jackass?

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6i5g42Fp3b37U1@mid.individual.net...
> Wayne wrote:
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>>> with firearms.
>>>
>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>
>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
>> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
>> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>
> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman purchase.
>
-
LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?  If the gummint wants to know 
where the gun is, they know right where to find it and the legal owner.  Are 
you naturally "out to lunch" or do you have to work at it?

Wayne wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>> Wayne wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>>
>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
>>> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
>>> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>
>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>> purchase.
> -
> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?

Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.

> If the gummint wants to
> know where the gun is, they know right where to find it and the legal
> owner.  Are you naturally "out to lunch" or do you have to work at it?

Figures a lowlife gun-nut like you wouldn't follow the law.

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6i5q8oFonq77U1@mid.individual.net...
> Wayne wrote:
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
>>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
>>>> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
>>>> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>>
>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>>> purchase.
>> -
>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
>
> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
>
I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns.

Wayne wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>> Wayne wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
>>>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
>>>>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
>>>>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>>>> purchase.
>>> -
>>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
>>
>> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
>>
> I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns.

So tell us about the strawman purchase law again, jackass.

LOL!

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
| Mr. Albritton wrote:
| >>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >>> themselves.
| >>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >>
| >> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| >
| > What the hell kind of response is that?
| > Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
| > exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
| > defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
|
| And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
| them, eh jackass?

%%%% I owned firearms when I was 13 and hunted on my own regularly. Let me 
guess you grew up in a city didn't you?


|
|
| >
| >>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
| >>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
| >>> gain?
| >>
| >> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
| >
| > I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
| > EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
| > Why?
| > Because gun control doesn't work.
| > The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are written.
|
| So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
| ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?
|
| And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
| are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?
|
| And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
| suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
| in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?
|
| And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
| are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
| misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?
|
| Glad you cleared that up, clown.
|
|
|
|

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6i5garFoj9k3U1@mid.individual.net...
| RM V2.0 wrote:
| > "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| > news:6i3n9sFo98s4U1@mid.individual.net...
| >> Mr. Albritton wrote:
| >>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
| >>>>
| >>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
| >>>
| >>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >>> themselves.
| >>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >>
| >> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| >>
| >>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
| >>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
| >>> gain?
| >>
| >> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
| >>
| >>
| > only if they are felons.
|
| So you support possession of firearms by the Mentally Ill, Drunkards
| and Drug Addicts, eh jackass?

%%%% No a liberal like you shouldn't have firearms. You would probably hurt 
yourself with it.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury


|
|
|

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i683gFp0gqgU1@mid.individual.net...
| Wayne wrote:
| > "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >> Wayne wrote:
| >>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >>>> Wayne wrote:
| >>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
| >>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| >>>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>> snip
| >>>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
| >>>>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
| >>>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
| >>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
| >>>>>>
| >>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
| >>>>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
| >>>>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
| >>>>
| >>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
| >>>> purchase.
| >>> -
| >>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
| >>
| >> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
| >>
| > I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns.
|
| So tell us about the strawman purchase law again, jackass.
|
| LOL!

%%%% All I see is a leftist trying in vain to construct a strawman.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury


|
|
|

David Moffitt wrote:
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
> news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
>>>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
>>>>
>>>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
>>>
>>> What the hell kind of response is that?
>>> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
>>> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
>>> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
>>
>> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
>> them, eh jackass?
>
> %%%% I owned firearms when I was 13 and hunted on my own regularly.
> Let me guess you grew up in a city didn't you?

Prove it, liar.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
>>>>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
>>>>> gain?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of
>>>> Amerikkkans?
>>>
>>> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
>>> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
>>> Why?
>>> Because gun control doesn't work.
>>> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are
>>> written.
>>
>> So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
>> ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?
>>
>> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
>> are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?
>>
>> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
>> suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
>> in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?
>>
>> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
>> are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
>> misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?
>>
>> Glad you cleared that up, clown.

David Moffitt wrote:
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
> news:6i683gFp0gqgU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Wayne wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ...
>>>>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be
>>>>>>>>> child abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
>>>>>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
>>>>>>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
>>>>>>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>>>>>> purchase.
>>>>> -
>>>>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
>>>>
>>>> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
>>>>
>>> I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns.
>>
>> So tell us about the strawman purchase law again, jackass.
>>
>> LOL!
>
> %%%% All I see is a

No, you don't.

"Wayne"  wrote in news:g9kcpg$4g5$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> 
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
> news:6i5q8oFonq77U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Wayne wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
>>>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
>>>>> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
>>>>> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>>>> purchase. 
>>> -
>>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
>>
>> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
>>
> I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns. 
> 
> 

Or much of anything else.

-- 
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i6cnnFp1ir3U1@mid.individual.net...
| David Moffitt wrote:
| > "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| > news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
| >> Mr. Albritton wrote:
| >>>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >>>>> themselves.
| >>>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >>>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >>>>
| >>>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| >>>
| >>> What the hell kind of response is that?
| >>> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
| >>> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
| >>> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
| >>
| >> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
| >> them, eh jackass?
| >
| > %%%% I owned firearms when I was 13 and hunted on my own regularly.
| > Let me guess you grew up in a city didn't you?
|
| Prove it, liar.

%%%% Yep! You grew up in the city.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury

|
|
| >
| >
| >>
| >>
| >>>
| >>>>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
| >>>>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
| >>>>> gain?
| >>>>
| >>>> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of
| >>>> Amerikkkans?
| >>>
| >>> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
| >>> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
| >>> Why?
| >>> Because gun control doesn't work.
| >>> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are
| >>> written.
| >>
| >> So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
| >> ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?
| >>
| >> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
| >> are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?
| >>
| >> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
| >> suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
| >> in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?
| >>
| >> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
| >> are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
| >> misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?
| >>
| >> Glad you cleared that up, clown.
|
|

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i6cogFp4rktU1@mid.individual.net...
| David Moffitt wrote:
| > "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| > news:6i683gFp0gqgU1@mid.individual.net...
| >> Wayne wrote:
| >>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >>>> Wayne wrote:
| >>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >>>>>> Wayne wrote:
| >>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
| >>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| >>>>>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
| >>>>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ...
| >>>>>>>>>> LOL!
| >>>>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>> snip
| >>>>>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be
| >>>>>>>>> child abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well
| >>>>>>>>> acquainted with firearms.
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
| >>>>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
| >>>>>>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
| >>>>>>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
| >>>>>> purchase.
| >>>>> -
| >>>>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
| >>>>
| >>>> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
| >>>>
| >>> I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns.
| >>
| >> So tell us about the strawman purchase law again, jackass.
| >>
| >> LOL!
| >
| > %%%%  All I see is a leftist trying in vain to construct a strawman.
|
| No, you don't.

%%%% When you cover your eyes it doesn't keep other from seeing you. That 
only works with you playing peek- a- boo with your grandmother.

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any 
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. 
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with 
their lives and freedoms." -- ROBERT HEINLEIN


|
|
|

"David Moffitt"  wrote in message 
news:ccidnSXw55wSZiDVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
> news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
> | Mr. Albritton wrote:
> | >>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
> | >>> themselves.
> | >>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
> | >>> "highly evolved" society, right?
> | >>
> | >> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
> | >
> | > What the hell kind of response is that?
> | > Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
> | > exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
> | > defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
> |
> | And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
> | them, eh jackass?
>
> %%%% I owned firearms when I was 13 and hunted on my own regularly. Let me
> guess you grew up in a city didn't you?
>

Darn.
I lived in a large city and bought my first rifle (single-shot .22) at age 
10.
Naturally it was with parental permission

Reality@Check.it (Reality_Check©) wrote in
news:6i3ieqFohnjcU1@mid.individual.net: 

> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
> 

Should the brain-dead like the ironically named "Reality_Check" be
allowed access to the Internet? 

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

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6i5g42Fp3b37U1@mid.individual.net...
> Wayne wrote:
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>>> with firearms.
>>>
>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>
>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
>> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
>> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>
> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman purchase.
>
>
Thats not a straw purchase, asswipe. Guns are allowed to be bought as gifts. 
Straw purchases are bought for people forbidden to own guns. Minors are not 
forbidden to own, they cannot purchase from FFL's is all. Your child can own 
a car at 11 if they want, they just cant drive it on public roads. They can 
own forearms, they cant carry concealed or openly off your property. Jeez 
you are ignorant.
>

"Wayne"  wrote in message 
news:g9k7jo$um5$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
> news:6i5g42Fp3b37U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Wayne wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>>>> with firearms.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>>>
>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
>>> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
>>> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>
>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman purchase.
>>
> -
> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?  If the gummint wants to know 
> where the gun is, they know right where to find it and the legal owner. 
> Are you naturally "out to lunch" or do you have to work at it?

Not once it starts changing hands in FTF transactions, legal or illegal. I 
think ignorance comes naturally to him.
>

>>>>>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>>>>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
.
Purchase from FFL, no. Possess on their private property, yes.

>>>>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
>>>>>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
>>>>>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>>>>> purchase.
>>>> -
>>>> LOL, and that is a felony strawman purchase?
>>>
>>> Figures an inbred gun-loon like you wouldn't have a clue.
>>>
>> I keep forgetting that you don't know squat about guns.
>
> So tell us about the strawman purchase law again, jackass.
>
Purchasing a firearm from an FFL with intent to give to someone who is not 
able to legally purchase on their own and is unable to possess as well. I 
can go buy a gun for a gift and that is not a straw purchase, assclown. I 
can pick up a receiver at a show for a friend who cant make it but is 
perfectly legal to get on his own and that is not a straw purchase.

theprof@jonez.net (_ Prof. Jonez _) wrote in
news:6i5g42Fp3b37U1@mid.individual.net: 

> Wayne wrote:

>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
> 
> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
> purchase. 

You mean like Sarah Brady, patron saint of gun-control goons like you
the world over, who bought a rifle for her son back in '02? 

You're apparently completely uninformed about gun control laws in the
US. 

But then, you're an idiot.

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

"SaPeIsMa"  wrote in message 
news:e7-dnfZt85EVFyPVnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@posted.cpinternet...
|
| "David Moffitt"  wrote in message
| news:ccidnSXw55wSZiDVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@earthlink.com...
| >
| > "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| > news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
| > | Mr. Albritton wrote:
| > | >>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| > | >>> themselves.
| > | >>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| > | >>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| > | >>
| > | >> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| > | >
| > | > What the hell kind of response is that?
| > | > Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
| > | > exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
| > | > defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
| > |
| > | And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
| > | them, eh jackass?
| >
| > %%%% I owned firearms when I was 13 and hunted on my own regularly. Let 
me
| > guess you grew up in a city didn't you?
| >
|
| Darn.
| I lived in a large city and bought my first rifle (single-shot .22) at age
| 10.
| Naturally it was with parental permission

%%%% I got my own 22 rifle at 13. Prior to that time I used my older 
brothers. At 16 I got a 30-30 Winchester for deer hunting.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury




|
|

"RM V2.0"  wrote in message 
news:W9xvk.185597$Qi2.53014@fe06.news.easynews.com...
|
| "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| news:6i5g42Fp3b37U1@mid.individual.net...
| > Wayne wrote:
| >> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
| >>>
| >>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
| >>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| >>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
| >>>>>
| >>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>> snip
| >>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
| >>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
| >>>> with firearms.
| >>>
| >>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
| >>> firearms on their own, now does it?
| >>>
| >> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill out
| >> whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun "belongs"
| >> to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
| >
| > Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman purchase.
| >
| >
| Thats not a straw purchase, asswipe. Guns are allowed to be bought as 
gifts.
| Straw purchases are bought for people forbidden to own guns. Minors are 
not
| forbidden to own, they cannot purchase from FFL's is all. Your child can 
own
| a car at 11 if they want, they just cant drive it on public roads. They 
can
| own forearms, they cant carry concealed or openly off your property. Jeez
| you are ignorant.

%%%% Remember you are talking to a hoplophobe.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury
| >
|
|

Bert Hyman  wrote in news:Xns9B0E6254DA785VeebleFetzer@
127.0.0.1:

> theprof@jonez.net (_ Prof. Jonez _) wrote in
> news:6i5g42Fp3b37U1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> Wayne wrote:
> 
>>> Doesn't matter.  One of the parents goes to buy the gun and fill
>>> out whatever paperwork there is.  From that point on, the gun
>>> "belongs" to the kid, even if the gummint thinks otherwise.
>> 
>> Figures a gun-nutter like you would suggest a FELONY strawman
>> purchase. 
> 
> You mean like Sarah Brady, patron saint of gun-control goons like you
> the world over, who bought a rifle for her son back in '02? 
> 
> You're apparently completely uninformed about gun control laws in the
> US. 
> 
> But then, you're an idiot.
> 

Here, let me correct that for you.

Regarding Poof Jonez.

You're apparently completely uninformed.

-- 
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

"Reality_Check©"  wrote in message 
news:6i4b9sFodoq1U1@mid.individual.net...
| David Moffitt wrote:
| > "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| > news:6i3svaFopebcU1@mid.individual.net...
| >> Mr. Albritton wrote:
| >>>>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >>>>> themselves.
| >>>>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >>>>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >>>>
| >>>> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| >>>
| >>> What the hell kind of response is that?
| >>> Children under 18 are targeted all the time as victims - which is
| >>> exactly why ALL parents should be well armed and ready to VISCIOUSLY
| >>> defend the safety and well-being of their own children.
| >>
| >> And when those PARENTS are only 17-yrs-old, you support ARMING
| >> them, eh jackass?
| >
| > I had a gun when I was 17.
|
| Prove it.
|
|
| >You grew up in the city didn't you?
|
| You're lying again.

Dodge noted.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury


|
|
|

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6i5garFoj9k3U1@mid.individual.net...
| RM V2.0 wrote:
| > "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
| > news:6i3n9sFo98s4U1@mid.individual.net...
| >> Mr. Albritton wrote:
| >>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
| >>>>
| >>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
| >>>
| >>> You really are stupid enough to think that nobody needs to defend
| >>> themselves.
| >>> Let me guess: thieves, rapists, and murders don't exist in today's
| >>> "highly evolved" society, right?
| >>
| >> And they never target anyone under 18 years old, right?
| >>
| >>> How would you propose defending yourself against someone who has,
| >>> and is willing to use - a gun against you for his/her own personal
| >>> gain?
| >>
| >> Why do you support the denial of firearms to millions of Amerikkkans?
| >>
| >>
| > only if they are felons.
|
| So you support possession of firearms by the Mentally Ill, Drunkards
| and Drug Addicts, eh jackass?

Liberals should not have firearms or pointed sticks either.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury


|
|
|

Bert Hyman wrote:
> Reality@Check.it (Reality_Check©) wrote in
> news:6i3ieqFohnjcU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>
>
> Should the brain-dead like the ironically named "Reality_Check" be
> allowed access to the Internet?

How's Buster?

>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>
>>
>> Should the brain-dead like the ironically named "Reality_Check" be
>> allowed access to the Internet?
>
> How's Buster?

How about you answer my question instead of skating out of it like a little 
weasel.
In case you can't remember, here they are:

>> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
>> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
>> Why?
>> Because gun control doesn't work.
>> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are written.
>
> So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
> ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?

Yes.

> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?

Yes.

> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
> in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?

Yes.

> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
> misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?

Yes.

> Glad you cleared that up, clown.

Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY knows that
EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally draw a weapon will
be gunned down.

How else do you propose to defend yourself against a criminal who already 
has a
gun?



"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look
upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

As John Steinbeck once said .
  1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just kill you.

  2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

  3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

  4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should the brain-dead like the ironically named "Reality_Check" be
>>> allowed access to the Internet?
>>
>> How's Buster?
>
> How about you answer my question instead of skating out of it like a
> little weasel.
> In case you can't remember, here they are:
>
>>> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
>>> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
>>> Why?
>>> Because gun control doesn't work.
>>> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are
>>> written.
>>
>> So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
>> ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?
>
> Yes.

Your gun-loon lobbyists, the NRA, doesn't.

>
>> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
>> are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?
>
> Yes.

Your kkkonservative gun-nut lobbyists, the mighty NRA, doesn't.


>
>> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
>> suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
>> in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?
>
> Yes.

You must suffer from mental defect then, eh?

>
>> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
>> are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
>> misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?
>
> Yes.

Too bad your elected Repugnikkkan Gov't stooges don't, eh?

>
>> Glad you cleared that up, clown.
>
> Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY
> knows that EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally
> draw a weapon will be gunned down.

Really? And when the rolling gun-battles erupt, how will you know
who's the "criminal" and who's the vigilante firing wildly into the crowd,
if you didn't witness the first shot(s)?

>>
>> Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY
>> knows that EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally
>> draw a weapon will be gunned down.
>
> Really? And when the rolling gun-battles erupt, how will you know
> who's the "criminal" and who's the vigilante firing wildly into the crowd,
> if you didn't witness the first shot(s)?
>
>
Ahh, the "blood will run in the streets" arguement. Tried repeatedly for 
decades, has yet to happen. Reality Check just bounced.

In reference to the subject of this post:
"Should Mr. Albritton be allowed to possess a firearm?"

I already do.  Multiple firearms, in fact.
Even though I don't personally agree with ANY licensing policy, I AM 
licensed to carry ALL of them.

That being said...  Let's see you do something about my lawfully owned and 
CARRIED firearms.

> Really? And when the rolling gun-battles erupt, how will you know
> who's the "criminal" and who's the vigilante firing wildly into the crowd,
> if you didn't witness the first shot(s)?

Ask the Governor of Vermont.
Are you lost by the above statement?  Here.  Let me educate you.

Vermont (legally) doesn't care about your gun.  In Vermont, if you can buy 
it, then you can carry it.  No questions asked.  No CCW.  No pictures.  No 
fingerprints.  No licensing fees.  No money going to a range master for 
"range certification."  No paperwork submitted to the state government.

P.S.  Vermont is consistently rated as one of the top 5 safest states in the 
country.
Reference:  http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Mr. Albritton wrote:
> In reference to the subject of this post:
> "Should Mr. Albritton be allowed to possess a firearm?"
>
> I already do.  Multiple firearms, in fact.
> Even though I don't personally agree with ANY licensing policy, I AM
> licensed to carry ALL of them.
>
> That being said...  Let's see you do something about my lawfully
> owned and CARRIED firearms.

As soon as you break the law, we will ... or perhaps sooner ...

_ Poofter Jonez _ wrote:
> Mr. Albritton wrote:
> 
>>In reference to the subject of this post:
>>"Should Mr. Albritton be allowed to possess a firearm?"
>>
>>I already do.  Multiple firearms, in fact.
>>Even though I don't personally agree with ANY licensing policy, I AM
>>licensed to carry ALL of them.
>>
>>That being said...  Let's see you do something about my lawfully
>>owned and CARRIED firearms.
> 
> 
> As soon as you break the law, we will ... or perhaps sooner ...

Who's this "we" you speak of?

  You got another Gerbil in yer butt?

"RM V2.0"  wrote in message 
news:M_Rvk.492985$bC5.383945@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY
>>> knows that EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally
>>> draw a weapon will be gunned down.
>>
>> Really? And when the rolling gun-battles erupt, how will you know
>> who's the "criminal" and who's the vigilante firing wildly into the 
>> crowd,
>> if you didn't witness the first shot(s)?
>>
>>
> Ahh, the "blood will run in the streets" arguement. Tried repeatedly for 
> decades, has yet to happen. Reality Check just bounced.

Liberals always assume that their lack of self control is shared by the rest 
of the population.

>> That being said...  Let's see you do something about my lawfully
>> owned and CARRIED firearms.
>
> As soon as you break the law, we will ... or perhaps sooner ...

"Perhaps sooner..."
Which directly means that you have violated amendment 4.  (Unlawful search 
and seizure.)
Oh wait....  Democrats think the US Constitution is crap and therefore not 
necessary to follow.
AND
Using the Internet to threaten someone.....  (AKA cyberstalking)
Isn't that against the law in most states?

On Sep 3, 9:34 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
> Mr. Albritton wrote:
> >>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>
> >>> Should the brain-dead like the ironically named "Reality_Check" be
> >>> allowed access to the Internet?
>
> >> How's Buster?
>
> > How about you answer my question instead of skating out of it like a
> > little weasel.
> > In case you can't remember, here they are:
>
> >>> I don't.  (And you still don't know how to spell AMERICANS.)
> >>> EVERY American should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
> >>> Why?
> >>> Because gun control doesn't work.
> >>> The bad guys still have the guns, no matter how many laws are
> >>> written.
>
> >> So you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who are
> >> ex-felons possessing firearms, eh jackass?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Your gun-loon lobbyists, the NRA, doesn't.
>

Mr. Albritton is answering for himself, not the NRA.

>
>
> >> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> >> are addicted to drugs possessing firearms, eh moron?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Your kkkonservative gun-nut lobbyists, the mighty NRA, doesn't.
>

Mr. Albritton is answering for himself, not the NRA.

>
>
> >> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> >> suffer from "mental defect" or who have even been
> >> in a mental institution possessing firearms, eh dipshit?
>
> > Yes.
>
> You must suffer from mental defect then, eh?
>

Jumping to conclusions is not really a form of exercise.

>
>
> >> And you support MILLIONS of Amerikkkans who
> >> are accused of, but not convicted of, crimes including
> >> misdemeanor "domestic abuse" possessing firearms, eh numbnuts?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Too bad your elected Repugnikkkan Gov't stooges don't, eh?
>

Mr. Albritton is answering for himself, not Republican government
representatives.

>
>
> >> Glad you cleared that up, clown.
>
> > Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY
> > knows that EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally
> > draw a weapon will be gunned down.
>
> Really? And when the rolling gun-battles erupt, how will you know
> who's the "criminal" and who's the vigilante firing wildly into the crowd> if you didn't witness the first shot(s)?

Mr. Albritton answered your questions.  Perhaps you could answer his:

"How else do you propose to defend yourself against a criminal who
already
has a gun?"

"Mr. Albritton"  wrote in message
>>> That being said...  Let's see you do something about my lawfully
>>> owned and CARRIED firearms.
>>
>> As soon as you break the law, we will ... or perhaps sooner ...
>
> "Perhaps sooner..."
> Which directly means that you have violated amendment 4.  (Unlawful search and 
> seizure.)

Complete Bullshit ... as expected from an imbecile gun-tard.

> Oh wait....  Democrats think the US Constitution is crap and therefore not 
> necessary to follow.

The irony coming from a Fascist Rightard Bu$h Goosestepper is
nearly enough to cause a spontaneous black-hole.


> AND
> Using the Internet to threaten someone.....

What threat?

 (AKA cyberstalking)

AKA you're a fucking moron.

> Isn't that against the law in most states?

If you have to ask, you're too stupid to comprehend.

Now take Dick Cheney's advice and go fuck yourself, jackass.

"Scout"  wrote in message 
news:zsydnQlxIMLuiV3VnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "RM V2.0"  wrote in message 
> news:M_Rvk.492985$bC5.383945@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>> Me too.  Now that the battle-ground is completely even, EVERYBODY
>>>> knows that EVERYBODY has a gun.  Anyone stupid enough to criminally
>>>> draw a weapon will be gunned down.
>>>
>>> Really? And when the rolling gun-battles erupt, how will you know
>>> who's the "criminal" and who's the vigilante firing wildly into the crowd,
>>> if you didn't witness the first shot(s)?
>>>
>>>
>> Ahh, the "blood will run in the streets" arguement. Tried repeatedly for 
>> decades, has yet to happen. Reality Check just bounced.
>
> Liberals always

You're lying again you amoral cunt.

Rodney Long wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>
>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> snip
>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>> with firearms.
>>
>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>
> Neither can they purchase land, or a car, or sign any contract at that
> age, BIG DEAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
firearms on their own, now does it?

>
> This has nothing to do with gun crime or violence, only the use of
> guns to "save" lives, and protect from violent acts, such as rape,
> and assault

Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
firearms on their own, now does it?

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:06:18 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
 wrote:

>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>>> with firearms.
>>>
>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>> firearms on their own, now does it?

What "law" is it that "doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to
purchase/possess firearms on their own" you stupid motherfucker.  Fed
law?  All fed law says it that you have to be 18 to BUY a gun from a
FFL.  Do you understand the difference or has barry informed you yet?

There are 50 states (not barry's 59) and SOME may "prohibit" gun
possesion by "children".  Not TEXAS.  Praise allah that you are not
here.

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6ibig4Fpr5s0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Rodney Long wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> "Wayne"  wrote in message
>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in message
>>>>> Should un-wed Teenage Mothers be allowed to Possess Firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> To "protect" the baby of course ... from Grizzly bears ... LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>> Don't know much about Alaska, do you dumbass.  It would be child
>>>> abuse to have a kid grow up in Alaska without being well acquainted
>>>> with firearms.
>>>
>>> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
>>> firearms on their own, now does it?
>>
>> Neither can they purchase land, or a car, or sign any contract at that
>> age, BIG DEAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
> firearms on their own, now does it?
>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with gun crime or violence, only the use of
>> guns to "save" lives, and protect from violent acts, such as rape,
>> and assault
>
> Yet the law doesn't allow 17-yr-old mothers to purchase/possess
> firearms on their own, now does it?
>
No... but it does allow accesss to firearms with parental consent...