Guest Happy Vegan Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 6:09 pm, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I actually called you a troll because I couldn't believe it was > possible for someone to be so damned stupid and shortsighted. So I > stand corrected. Your not a troll. You're just an idiot. Oh well coming from a jackass like you no big insult. > Anyway, > you are representative of the mindless hysteria that surrounds this > debate. 32 PEOPLE HAD THEIR HEADS BLOWN OFF AT POINT BLANK RANGE, YA THINK THEIR MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF ANGER FROM US WHO OPPOSE SENSELESS KILLING? If you weren't so mindless about it and just shrug things off like this, "oh well that's just the cost of loving our guns." > Consider this for a moment: the shooter bought this gun > legally. A background check was done and he passed it. If his > mentally deranged status was so easy to see how on earth do you > explain how he got his gun. Uhm I didn't sell him the damn thing, the gun store owner eager to make a sale did, enabled by a Virginia state legislature who passes wreckless irresponsible gun laws to please their "Monster truck driving redneck constituency." So you tell me if the back ground check was all that, why did it not pickup that he was a mental patient? The burden to explain is not on me bucko. Its on you. > Remember, a full background check was > done. Oh yeah your instant back ground check that's done as an excuse to sell guns to whoever and whenever right? That's why felons from DC and NYC drive down to Virginia to buy guns because they know the sham system is not updated regularly. That's why a student on Psych medication waltzed in there and threw down his money and waltzed right out. The gun store owner didn't give a damn just like you don't either. > I'd submit that it's easier to buy guns illegally than it is > legally. It could be much easier! Why buy it illegally? Cho and his prozac bought it perfectly legal. Thank God for the instant back ground check.....NOT! > No, there is no law that would have prevented this. Sure there is, NO MORE GUN STORES and GUN SHOWS. get it? > If only > gun laws weren't so restrictive another student just may have been > able to minimize this tragedy. Oh yeah, lets just have a wild west show in the class room, that's the answer let's all carry a big iron on our hip. Can you see now where you're the bigger idiot? Too much gun smoke and bonanza for you. My Gosh. > Thank the VA legislature for that. > Last, I'm not sure what to make of your obvious disdain for the > constitutional right to carry arms. Perhaps you think every time > there is a derranged person out there who commits an isolated > atrocious act our contitutional rights ought to be tossed away. I have a bigger disdain for dead students brutally gunned down. It is alarming that people like you are not outraged by it. You should really try to overcome your addiction to violence. M Quote
neilsthepoet Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 [quote name='Starkiller Quote I am the learning curve's downward spiral.
Guest John Agosta Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "glw82664" <glw82664@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1176858565.327884.189480@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 17, 8:15 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Apr 17, 4:56 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 16, 10:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have >> > > to die because of our lax gun laws. >> >> > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 >> >> > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating >> > > muscle >> > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent >> > > people will die because of this mentality. M >> >> > This has to be a troll, otherwise, you would have explained just how >> > any gun law would have prevented this crime. If anything, this event >> > demonstrates exactly why gun laws are too restrictive. All it would >> > have taken was one armed student (as prevented by the law that was >> > quashed a year ago) and this story could have had a less tragic ending. >> >> How dare you call me a troll you jerk. How about prohibiting sales of >> guns so that someone who is whacked like you can't just stroll into a >> gun shop and purchase one. The fact of the matter is its way too easy >> to purchase guns. You don't need a gun. If you're not a cop or in >> the military you don't need a gun. This deranged student who had >> obvious signs of mental problems was able to go to a store and >> purchase two guns. So here's the logic Einstein IF THEY WERE NO GUN >> STORES HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY A GUN!!!! M > > > I actually called you a troll because I couldn't believe it was > possible for someone to be so damned stupid and shortsighted. So I > stand corrected. Your not a troll. You're just an idiot. Anyway, > you are representative of the mindless hysteria that surrounds this > debate. Consider this for a moment: the shooter bought this gun > legally. A background check was done and he passed it. If his > mentally derranged status was so easy to see how on earth do you > explain how he got his gun. Remember, a full background check was > done. I'd submit that it's easier to buy guns illegally than it is > legally. No, there is no law that would have prevented this. Bullshit. The guy had a "history" of mental illness. A law requiring a reasonable background check on people before a gun purchase is allowed to take place would have prevented this EXACT type of tragedy from happening. Quote
Guest John Agosta Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "neilsthepoet" <neilsthepoet.2p7ty0@wpyo.bbs.local> wrote in message news:neilsthepoet.2p7ty0@wpyo.bbs.local... > > Starkiller Quote
Guest Rich Travsky Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "cyrakis@yahoo.com" wrote: > > On Apr 16, 7:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > > people will die because of this mentality. M > > There was gun control at Virginia Tech. All guns were banned from > campus. That gun control policy had the affect of making sure all the > nice folks who follow the rules and play nice were totally helpless > when they were attacked by a nut who didn't give a damn about any gun > ban. > > Why do you gun grabbers believe that making law-abiding citizens ever > easier victims for human predators is a good idea? You want a bunch of freshmen just out of high school running around with guns??? RT Quote
Guest - Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: > ... The guy had a "history" of mental illness. Uh, well, exactly what "history" was that? Cite? Documentation? He produced some tortured English prose, twisted and demented themes, surely nothing worse than standard fare for Hollywood horror. The professor suggested that he might benefit by counseling. Perhaps this is what set him off? Then the professor had misread the situation, i.e. a situation easily misread because the guy was not obviously mental. Sure, a lot of people could benefit by counseling. Monthly counseling is even mandatory in the military. That doesn't invalidate his right to own and deploy a weapon "for sport and defense." > A law requiring a reasonable background check on people before > a gun purchase is allowed to take place would have prevented this EXACT > type of tragedy from happening. So you first kill a guy who has guns, using a box-cutter knife. Next ! - regards - jb ------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Allen Poe: An American Original http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=349 ------------------------------------------------------------- Quote
Guest Captain Compassion Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:39:30 -0500, "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: > >"neilsthepoet" <neilsthepoet.2p7ty0@wpyo.bbs.local> wrote in message >news:neilsthepoet.2p7ty0@wpyo.bbs.local... >> >> Starkiller Quote
Guest cyrakis@yahoo.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 8:39 pm, "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: > "neilsthepoet" <neilsthepoet.2p7...@wpyo.bbs.local> wrote in message > > You must be living in the 18th century. > In today's world, there is no possible way to fight off the police, or any > of the branches of our armed forces. Thousands of dead U.S. service people in Iraq say you are wrong. > Therefore, to beleive that owning a firearm is a means to protect one's > liberties from the "government" > is idiotic. There is no equal footing. There is no contest. It's the best guarantee against tyranny yet invented. Substantially more effective than any promise you'd be willing to accept in exchange for your right of self-defense. A bunch of militia armed with small arms and improvised bombs just kicked the shit out of the world's last superpower, in case you didn't notice. > > Try watching "Cops," or "Highway Patrol Chases," or whatever that crap is. > The individual cannot win. No community uprising can win, either. A bunch of individuals are winning handily in Baghdad. Quote
Guest cyrakis@yahoo.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 5:15 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 4:56 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 10:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > > > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle > > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > > > people will die because of this mentality. M > > > This has to be a troll, otherwise, you would have explained just how > > any gun law would have prevented this crime. If anything, this event > > demonstrates exactly why gun laws are too restrictive. All it would > > have taken was one armed student (as prevented by the law that was > > quashed a year ago) and this story could have had a less tragic ending. > > How dare you call me a troll you jerk. How about prohibiting sales of > guns so that someone who is whacked like you can't just stroll into a > gun shop and purchase one. The fact of the matter is its way too easy > to purchase guns. You don't need a gun. I bet all those helpless victims who died yesterday were wishing they had a gun. Quote
Guest Lockheed Martin Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On 17 Apr 2007 16:28:45 -0700, SportsBookJunkie <JimmyD.LV@gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 17, 4:21 pm, aususa <josephbl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 17, 2:26 pm, Lockheed Martin <warprof...@whitehouse.us.gov> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 16 Apr 2007 21:56:07 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer >> >> > <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote: >> > >On Apr 16, 8:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have >> > >> to die because of our lax gun laws. >> >> > >>http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 >> >> > >It doesn't convince me. Events like this are very rare, and I value >> > >our freedom to own guns more than the lives of these people. >> >> > >Baldin Lee Pramer >> >> > of all the countries surveyed America has the most Killings with guns. >> >> > Greece which banned guns whether locals or tourists from America has >> > the lowest gun murders >> >> The stats don't lie, easy access to guns like you have in the USA is >> the cause of an extremely high rate of deaths caused by guns. >> >> Gun nuts live in a fantasy world if they believe arming everyone is >> going to reduce gun deaths. >> >> >> >> >> >> > - Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Why do you believe that passing another gun control law will have some >effect on crimes involving guns? Surveys prove that gun control do work numbers don't lie. > >Do you have some stats for that one also? Quote
Guest cyrakis@yahoo.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 6:49 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 6:09 pm, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I actually called you a troll because I couldn't believe it was > > possible for someone to be so damned stupid and shortsighted. So I > > stand corrected. Your not a troll. You're just an idiot. > > Oh well coming from a jackass like you no big insult. > > > Anyway, > > you are representative of the mindless hysteria that surrounds this > > debate. > > 32 PEOPLE HAD THEIR HEADS BLOWN OFF AT POINT BLANK RANGE, YA THINK > THEIR MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF ANGER FROM US WHO OPPOSE SENSELESS > KILLING? If you weren't so mindless about it and just shrug things off > like this, "oh well that's just the cost of loving our guns." But you have no solution. You are stuck in some fantasy where you actually believe you can eliminate firearms. That is never going to happen. Ever. It's as if you believe you can make gravity not apply to you if you just wish really hard. Guns are with us to stay. The best you could ever hope to do would be to disarm the law-abiding citizens, and those are exactly the type of people you DO want armed when a violent crisis erupts. THERE WAS A TOTAL GUN BAN AT THE CAMPUS. DUH! Look what happened under exactly the policy that you are calling for: a bunch of law-abiding citizens were helpless and at the mercy of a deranged nut. Instead of making sure that the ONLY people with firearms are the deranged nutters, why not let some of the law-abiding folks have a CHANCE of defending themseves? Quote
Guest cyrakis@yahoo.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 8:10 pm, "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: > "glw82664" <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1176858565.327884.189480@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 8:15 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 17, 4:56 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 16, 10:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > >> > > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > >> > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > >> > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating > >> > > muscle > >> > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > >> > > people will die because of this mentality. M > > >> > This has to be a troll, otherwise, you would have explained just how > >> > any gun law would have prevented this crime. If anything, this event > >> > demonstrates exactly why gun laws are too restrictive. All it would > >> > have taken was one armed student (as prevented by the law that was > >> > quashed a year ago) and this story could have had a less tragic ending. > > >> How dare you call me a troll you jerk. How about prohibiting sales of > >> guns so that someone who is whacked like you can't just stroll into a > >> gun shop and purchase one. The fact of the matter is its way too easy > >> to purchase guns. You don't need a gun. If you're not a cop or in > >> the military you don't need a gun. This deranged student who had > >> obvious signs of mental problems was able to go to a store and > >> purchase two guns. So here's the logic Einstein IF THEY WERE NO GUN > >> STORES HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY A GUN!!!! M > > > I actually called you a troll because I couldn't believe it was > > possible for someone to be so damned stupid and shortsighted. So I > > stand corrected. Your not a troll. You're just an idiot. Anyway, > > you are representative of the mindless hysteria that surrounds this > > debate. Consider this for a moment: the shooter bought this gun > > legally. A background check was done and he passed it. If his > > mentally derranged status was so easy to see how on earth do you > > explain how he got his gun. Remember, a full background check was > > done. I'd submit that it's easier to buy guns illegally than it is > > legally. No, there is no law that would have prevented this. > > Bullshit. > The guy had a "history" of mental illness. > A law requiring a reasonable background check on people before a gun > purchase is allowed to > take place would have prevented this EXACT type of tragedy from happening.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no background check that will offer 100% certainty that a gun purchaser will not use that firearm to kill. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that there is no foolproof way of preventing murderous psychopaths from acquiring a weapon. Which brings us back to the importance of recognizing the individual right of self-defense. The state can not protect you. The police at Virginia tech recovered bodies. The killing didn't stop until the nutter voluntarily ended the rampage. One armed student or teacher might have had a chance at saving some lives, but due to the misguided idealism of gun grabbers we will never know. Quote
Guest Bushzilla Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 16, 10:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > people will die because of this mentality. M I think quite obviously much more needs to and can be done. You will always have an occasional nut that gets a gun and goes postal no matter what you do, but whining about gun rights like the NRA does for their own selfish purposes is not helping matters at all. If anyone should be seriously concerned about gun violence in America it should be a group calling themselves THE National Rifle Association, you would think.. instead they do everything they can to make it easier for any idiot who wants to buy a gun the privilege so they can go on a rampage. Some ideas -- - Restrictions on who can own a gun and for what purpose. - Restrictions on the number of guns one can own (too fucking bad, you don't need an arsenal of weapons in your home to defend your family) - Restrictions on what types of weapons can be owned. - Limit to the amount of and type of ammunition that can be stored or kept per weapon. - Psychological testing for EVERY applicant and current gun owner (mandatory testing done in order to keep the guns you already have or you must turn them in or face arrest if you fail the test or refuse to take it) - Training, at least one week of classes for anyone owning or wanting to own a firearm, denial to those who fail, simple. (you have to pass written and road test to drive a car, but anyone can own a gun? that is just nuts) - Regulations on how the weapon should be stored. - Triple the jail time and fines for every existing and new law. - A 3 strikes you're out type law for repeat violations where you have suspended or lose permanently your gun privileges. This may all seem burdensome to gun owners that have been responsible with their weapons, but if they truly cared about what happened at VT or Columbine or the DC Sniper case etc, they would be the first in line to comply and co-operate so we can clean this country up. Anyone who does not get with the new laws and regulations goes to jail for a good length of time. You want to save lives? you need to divide the decent people who just want a gun for self defense from the ones who belong in jail or should not be allowed to own a gun. Nothing is achieved without some small sacrifices here, some testing, new laws and stricter penalties would do wonders. These are our lives and the current system has absolutely no checks and balances, standards or anything to even deter killers and criminals from obtaining fire arms other than a simple back ground check, it's not enough. Quote
Guest Rick Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 7:36 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 16, 10:13 pm, "-HoSt-" <h...@universe.com> wrote: > > > > > "Happy Vegan" <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:1176778004.043058.71090@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > > > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle > > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > > > people will die because of this mentality. M > > > You know what gun control is? > > > That is when YOU decide whether or not to own/carry a gun. > > That is all the control you will ever need. > > > Welcome to gun control. > > > Host. > > You hyper testosterone beefheads aren't intelligent enough to decide > to own/carry a gun. This is why we continue to have these massacres > at schools and work places. You either want a gun to shoot and kill > defenseless animals or people. Now which is it? M So, the intelligent elite, such as yourself, should be making the decision for us. What's next - will you be banning meat consumption and calling for euthanization of those with high levels of testosterone? Wouldn't you happier living where the intelligencia already make decisions for the stupid masses, like Cuba or China? Quote
Guest Rick Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 8:15 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 4:56 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 10:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > > > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle > > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > > > people will die because of this mentality. M > > > This has to be a troll, otherwise, you would have explained just how > > any gun law would have prevented this crime. If anything, this event > > demonstrates exactly why gun laws are too restrictive. All it would > > have taken was one armed student (as prevented by the law that was > > quashed a year ago) and this story could have had a less tragic ending. > > How dare you call me a troll you jerk. How about prohibiting sales of > guns so that someone who is whacked like you can't just stroll into a > gun shop and purchase one. The fact of the matter is its way too easy > to purchase guns. You don't need a gun. If you're not a cop or in > the military you don't need a gun. This deranged student who had > obvious signs of mental problems was able to go to a store and > purchase two guns. So here's the logic Einstein IF THEY WERE NO GUN > STORES HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY A GUN!!!! M Yes, he was whacked! He wanted to kill people. A gun was his tool. Limiting the availability of a particular tool wouldn't have reduced his desire to kill people. New York city has gun control. When a nut job named Julio Gonzales was angered by his girlfriend in 1990 he didn't have a gun, so he chose gasoline and a match as his tool to kill 87 in a New York city nightclub. How does your superior logic deal with that? Rick Quote
Guest glw82664 Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 9:49 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 6:09 pm, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I actually called you a troll because I couldn't believe it was > > possible for someone to be so damned stupid and shortsighted. So I > > stand corrected. Your not a troll. You're just an idiot. > > Oh well coming from a jackass like you no big insult. > > > Anyway, > > you are representative of the mindless hysteria that surrounds this > > debate. > > 32 PEOPLE HAD THEIR HEADS BLOWN OFF AT POINT BLANK RANGE, YA THINK > THEIR MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF ANGER FROM US WHO OPPOSE SENSELESS > KILLING? If you weren't so mindless about it and just shrug things off > like this, "oh well that's just the cost of loving our guns." > Do you understand that there was a no carry law in effect on that campus? Do you understand that the law had no effect here? Do you understand that criminals don't obey the law? > > Consider this for a moment: the shooter bought this gun > > legally. A background check was done and he passed it. If his > > mentally deranged status was so easy to see how on earth do you > > explain how he got his gun. > > Uhm I didn't sell him the damn thing, the gun store owner eager to > make a sale did, enabled by a Virginia state legislature who passes > wreckless irresponsible gun laws to please their "Monster truck > driving redneck constituency." > > So you tell me if the back ground check was all that, why did it not > pickup that he was a mental patient? The burden to explain is not on > me bucko. Its on you. > You broughtup his instability. Burden's on you. > > Remember, a full background check was > > done. > > Oh yeah your instant back ground check that's done as an excuse to > sell guns to whoever and whenever right? Silly argument. If guns canbe sold to whoever and whenever there would be no need for abackground check now would there? That's why felons from DC > and NYC drive down to Virginia to buy guns because they know the sham > system is not updated regularly. That's why a student on Psych > medication waltzed in there and threw down his money and waltzed right > out. The gun store owner didn't give a damn just like you don't > either. > > > I'd submit that it's easier to buy guns illegally than it is > > legally. > > It could be much easier! Why buy it illegally? Cho and his prozac > bought it perfectly legal. Thank God for the instant back ground > check.....NOT! > > > No, there is no law that would have prevented this. > > Sure there is, NO MORE GUN STORES and GUN SHOWS. get it? > You are incredibly stupid to believe that. Suddenly in your little fantasy world no gus stores equals no guns. Go re-read the part abouve about how criminals don't obey the law. > > If only > > gun laws weren't so restrictive another student just may have been > > able to minimize this tragedy. > > Oh yeah, lets just have a wild west show in the class room, that's the > answer let's all carry a big iron on our hip. Can you see now where > you're the bigger idiot? Too much gun smoke and bonanza for you. My > Gosh. > Unfettered BS. You can't produce one ounce of evidence of these alleged wild west shootouts. In fact, the wild west days were safer when people knew others were carrying guns. > > Thank the VA legislature for that. > > Last, I'm not sure what to make of your obvious disdain for the > > constitutional right to carry arms. Perhaps you think every time > > there is a derranged person out there who commits an isolated > > atrocious act our contitutional rights ought to be tossed away. > > I have a bigger disdain for dead students brutally gunned down. It is > alarming that people like you are not outraged by it. You should > really try to overcome your addiction to violence. M No, you use this tragedy as a platform to make a silly political point. Try looking at some research on violent crime rates where concealed carry is available. We'll see who is addicted to violence. Quote
Guest firelock_ny@hotmail.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 7:07 am, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Why don't gun nuts acknowledge the FACTS that a gun in the home is more > likely to kill or wound a friendly person than an intruder? That statistic only works if you count every person that a member of the household knows, even in passing, as a "friendly person". Some of these people, such as abusive spouses, psychotic neighbors and the local gangbangers are less than "friendly". > That a person is > more likely to die from suicide if there's a gun in the home? More likely to die from suicide by self-inflicted gunshot wound . If there isn't a gun in the home, then overdoses, hanging, and razor blades suffice. > Guns rarely prevent predators. About 2.2 million predators are prevented every year by defensive gun use, Roger - and the gun owner usually doesn't even need to fire his weapon. You'd like those 2.2 million people to be helpless victims. Why? > They make the homes of the owners more > dangerous for the people who live there. Sounds like you shouldn't buy yourself a gun - you're terrified of them. -- Walt Smith Firelock on DALNet Quote
Guest John Agosta Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "-" <jazzerciser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:462597ec.269510806@news.isomedia.com... > > "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: >> ... The guy had a "history" of mental illness. > > > Uh, well, exactly what "history" was that? Cite? Documentation? > He produced some tortured English prose, twisted and demented > themes, surely nothing worse than standard fare for Hollywood horror. > The professor suggested that he might benefit by counseling. Perhaps > this is what set him off? Then the professor had misread the > situation, > i.e. a situation easily misread because the guy was not obviously > mental. > Sure, a lot of people could benefit by counseling. Monthly counseling > is even mandatory in the military. That doesn't invalidate his right > to > own and deploy a weapon "for sport and defense." > You want cites? Documentation ? Try something called a newspaper. Quote
Guest - Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Bushzilla <icadserve@yahoo.com> wrote: > I think quite obviously much more needs to and can be done. You > will always have an occasional nut that gets a gun and goes postal > no matter what you do, but whining about gun rights like the NRA > does for their own selfish purposes is not helping matters at all. You seem to believe that nobody should have selfish purposes? The essence of defense for liberty and rights is one's selfish purpose. > If anyone should be seriously concerned about gun violence in > America it should be a group calling themselves THE National Rifle > Association, you would think.. instead they do everything they can > to make it easier for any idiot who wants to buy a gun the privilege > so they can go on a rampage. You appear to posit that anybody who goes on a rampage must by definition be an idiot. King George may have considered pioneer American founders as idiots because -THEY- went on a rampage. Nobody seems to have anticipated that Cho Seung-Hui was an idiot or that he was planning to go on a rampage. Maybe THEY are idiots. > Some ideas -- > > - Restrictions on who can own a gun and for what purpose. (a) Sport and defense. (b) Militia Right. > - Restrictions on the number of guns one can own (too fucking bad, you > don't need an arsenal of weapons in your home to defend your family) Apparently you have some difficulty with the language of the Second Amendment. I shall cite it here once more for your edification: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In order to provide for the circumstances where "a well regulated Militia" might EXIST, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." You cannot have a Militia unless the people are awarded a right "to keep and bear Arms." Once you obtain the Militia then steps may be pursued for its well regulation. > - Restrictions on what types of weapons can be owned. It's clear that the people are granted a right to own Militia weapons. Moreover, individuals have a right of self-defense to own weapons adequate to the task of self-defense against other powerful weapons. > - Limit to the amount of and type of ammunition that can be stored or > kept per weapon. It's ridiculous to suppose that the weapon has any capability once removing access to ammunition. An uninterruptible flow of ammunition is essential to the people's right "to keep and bear Arms." So "Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition ! " > - Psychological testing for EVERY applicant and current gun owner > (mandatory testing done in order to keep the guns you already have > or you must turn them in or face arrest if you fail the test or refuse to > take it) Shall I repeat the language of the Second Amendment for your benefit ? " ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL -NOT- BE INFRINGED " What, about that simple English, do you not understand ? > - Training, at least one week of classes for anyone owning or wanting > to own a firearm, denial to those who fail, simple. (you have to pass > written and road test to drive a car, but anyone can own a gun? that > is just nuts) " ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL -NOT- BE INFRINGED " > - Regulations on how the weapon should be stored. " ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL -NOT- BE INFRINGED " > - Triple the jail time and fines for every existing and new law. " ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL -NOT- BE INFRINGED " > - A 3 strikes you're out type law for repeat violations where you have > suspended or lose permanently your gun privileges. " ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL -NOT- BE INFRINGED " What, about that simple English, do you not understand ? - regards - jb ------------------------------------------------------------ Killer's Note: 'You Caused Me to Do This' http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 ------------------------------------------------------------ Quote
Guest Happy Vegan Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 18, 6:32 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Do you understand that there was a no carry law in effect on that > campus? Do you understand that the law had no effect here? Do you > understand that criminals don't obey the law? I understand that if scooter was able to go and purchase a gun like a loaf of bread at the corner store that the probability of this horrendous act would've been greatly reduced. > > You broughtup his instability. Burden's on you. LOL! Gotcha. I'll take that as a concession that you accept that the so called background checks are incapable revealing such data. What's funny now is more and more stuff is coming out on this psycho by the campus police had you or the gun store owner cared. > > Silly argument. If guns canbe sold to whoever and whenever there > would be no need for abackground check now would there? Because the background checks aren't efficient enough and you know it. > You are incredibly stupid to believe that. Suddenly in your little > fantasy world no gus stores equals no guns. Go re-read the part > abouve about how criminals don't obey the law. CHO HAD NO CRIMINAL RECORD and yet had no business owning a gun as his actions showed, but that's okay you'd rather wait until another 32 are murdered to realize that instead of being pro active. Being pro active is bad for the gun business. You talk about being incredibly stupid, you could write the book. > Unfettered BS. You can't produce one ounce of evidence of these > alleged wild west shootouts. LOL! You are truly a fool for thinking that the more people who carry guns we would all be safer. Particularly with all the type A personalities that exist. Tell me with that logic did you ever manage to graduate from kindergarten? > In fact, the wild west days were safer > when people knew others were carrying guns. Oh yeah back in the days when men had duels in the middle of main street over a freaking card game. Oh yeah that's what we need today...NOT. Tell me Mr. Brilliant do you wear a little cowboy outfit while reading your Louie Lamour novels. > No, you use this tragedy as a platform to make a silly political > point. Try looking at some research on violent crime rates where > concealed carry is available. We'll see who is addicted to violence. No, I use this tragedy to come to conclusion that it is way to easy to buy a gun particularly when you are planning a mass killing like this guy did. It is sad that more children, sisters, brothers, Moms, Dads, and friends. will die because the gun lobby insists on keeping the status quo. God forbid you were to lose a loved one, you might have a change of heart. M Quote
Guest Travis Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 16, 11:13 pm, "-HoSt-" <h...@universe.com> wrote: > "Happy Vegan" <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1176778004.043058.71090@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have > > to die because of our lax gun laws. > > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent > > people will die because of this mentality. M > > You know what gun control is? > > That is when YOU decide whether or not to own/carry a gun. > That is all the control you will ever need. > > Welcome to gun control. > > Host. Gun control is being able to hit what you shoot at... Travis Quote
Guest - Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 >> "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: >>> ... The guy had a "history" of mental illness. > "-" <jazzerciser@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Uh, well, exactly what "history" was that? Cite? Documentation? >> He produced some tortured English prose, twisted and demented >> themes, surely nothing worse than standard fare for Hollywood horror. >> The professor suggested that he might benefit by counseling. Perhaps >> this is what set him off? Then the professor had misread the situation, >> i.e. a situation easily misread because the guy was not obviously mental. >> Sure, a lot of people could benefit by counseling. Monthly counseling >> is even mandatory in the military. That doesn't invalidate his right to >> own and deploy a weapon "for sport and defense." "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote: > You want cites? Documentation ? > Try something called a newspaper. It seems that you have read a newspaper. Which newspaper was that? Date, page#, please. I found "Richard McBeef" and "Mr. Brownstone" - http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ - however these are just strange and funny. Likely as not, Seung Cho went off the deep end when his English efforts went unappreciated. Some milktoast humor-impaired feminist bitches at "Virginia Tech" just could not cotton to his edgy raw satire. By recommending counseling they merely incited him to grab the suitable weapons and fire up their cum-filled pussy asses. There wre many opportunities to turn this around and give Seung Cho a high-paying job with Sumner Redstone's MTV writers. Instead the dipshit derelicts at "Virginia Tech" had no connections with Hollywood screenwriting agents. We will see some of Seung Cho's productions, or stupid look-alike rip-offs, from Jew-controlled Hollywood in the near future. Jews did not want any slope-head competitors in their midst. - regards - jb -------------------------------------------------------------- More twaddle from Richard McBeef ... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html -------------------------------------------------------------- Quote
Guest glw82664 Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 18, 11:34 am, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 6:32 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Do you understand that there was a no carry law in effect on that > > campus? Do you understand that the law had no effect here? Do you > > understand that criminals don't obey the law? > > I understand that if scooter was able to go and purchase a gun like a > loaf of bread at the corner store that the probability of this > horrendous act would've been greatly reduced. > Based on nothing, > > > > You broughtup his instability. Burden's on you. > > LOL! Gotcha. I'll take that as a concession that you accept that the > so called background checks are incapable revealing such data. What's > funny now is more and more stuff is coming out on this psycho by the > campus police had you or the gun store owner cared. > > > > > Silly argument. If guns canbe sold to whoever and whenever there > > would be no need for abackground check now would there? > > Because the background checks aren't efficient enough and you know it. > I won't concede that. > > You are incredibly stupid to believe that. Suddenly in your little > > fantasy world no gus stores equals no guns. Go re-read the part > > abouve about how criminals don't obey the law. > > CHO HAD NO CRIMINAL RECORD and yet had no business owning a gun as his > actions showed, but that's okay you'd rather wait until another 32 are > murdered to realize that instead of being pro active. Being pro > active is bad for the gun business. You talk about being incredibly > stupid, you could write the book. > Huh? He ha NO criminal record and you use that as a defense of gun control? > > Unfettered BS. You can't produce one ounce of evidence of these > > alleged wild west shootouts. > > LOL! You are truly a fool for thinking that the more people who carry > guns we would all be safer. Particularly with all the type A > personalities that exist. Tell me with that logic did you ever manage > to graduate from kindergarten? > It's true. The stats are out there. All you need to do is look. You're afraid to do it. Oh, and you still haven't provided any evidence of these shootouts. People already carry guns and I'm wondering where all these wild west shootouts are? You need to stop watching clint eastwood movies. See, that's fantasy. We're dealing with reality here. > > In fact, the wild west days were safer > > when people knew others were carrying guns. > > Oh yeah back in the days when men had duels in the middle of main > street over a freaking card game. Oh yeah that's what we need > today...NOT. Tell me Mr. Brilliant do you wear a little cowboy outfit > while reading your Louie Lamour novels. > Nope, but I do carry a gun. I'm not going to be a sitting duck. I'm going to give myself a chance. A chance that these student were never given. Thanks to manic hysteria just like you are spouting here. > > No, you use this tragedy as a platform to make a silly political > > point. Try looking at some research on violent crime rates where > > concealed carry is available. We'll see who is addicted to violence. > > No, I use this tragedy to come to conclusion that it is way to easy to > buy a gun particularly when you are planning a mass killing like this > guy did. It is sad that more children, sisters, brothers, Moms, Dads, > and friends. will die because the gun lobby insists on keeping the > status quo. God forbid you were to lose a loved one, you might have a > change of heart. M I've actually had a loved one save themself and their family with a gun. Their situation makes my case better than your feely good remove guns from stores fantasy. I'll say it again. Thanks to the VA legislature these students never had a chance. All it would have taken was one, just one armed student and we wouldn't be having this conversation. On a related note, google the story about the appalcian state shootout of a few years ago. See how that one ended. Quote
Guest Larry Hewitt Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 <cyrakis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176876830.154494.296070@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 17, 5:15 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Apr 17, 4:56 am, glw82664 <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 16, 10:46 pm, Happy Vegan <nofur4...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have >> > > to die because of our lax gun laws. >> >> > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 >> >> > > That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating >> > > muscle >> > > head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent >> > > people will die because of this mentality. M >> >> > This has to be a troll, otherwise, you would have explained just how >> > any gun law would have prevented this crime. If anything, this event >> > demonstrates exactly why gun laws are too restrictive. All it would >> > have taken was one armed student (as prevented by the law that was >> > quashed a year ago) and this story could have had a less tragic ending. >> >> How dare you call me a troll you jerk. How about prohibiting sales of >> guns so that someone who is whacked like you can't just stroll into a >> gun shop and purchase one. The fact of the matter is its way too easy >> to purchase guns. You don't need a gun. > > I bet all those helpless victims who died yesterday were wishing they > had a gun. > I'll bet that instead they had a place to hide. Shooting back exposes you. Larry Quote
Guest Scotius Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On 16 Apr 2007 19:46:44 -0700, Happy Vegan <nofur4me1@yahoo.com> wrote: >If this event doesn't convince you nothing will! How many more have >to die because of our lax gun laws. You imbecile. In one breath you say that only the military and police should have firearms. The police murder people too, and the military does it on a GRAND scale under the direction of someone like Bush. You little shithead. Why don't you think before you post? > >http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574 > >That's the problem with the United States every red meat eating muscle >head thinks they have to have a gun to feel macho. More innocent >people will die because of this mentality. M "...red meat eating musclehead"? Ah... I get it... the "happy" in "happy vegan" means gay. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.