"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV,
>>> no
>>> Radio.) I see.
>> By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed.
>> You
>> have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.
>
> Yeah. What I _don't_ have access to is enormous amounts of time.

I'd like to comment in more detail on the misuse of pesticides by homeowners
and landscapers, but because I don't have the time to study the issue more
deeply, I know when to keep quiet. You should do the same with regard to
guns.


I also asked your age. It's pertinent to the discussion. How old are you?



>>>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>>>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>>>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>>>> what an assault rifle is.
>>>
>>> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of
>>> armored
>>> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
>>> coming with explosive bullets.
>>
>> Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
>> into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.
>
> Yeah, I did. I stated that what I was talking about was a "working
> definition", not a real, military definition.

There is no military definition. A gun is a gun. There are DEFECTIVE
definitions, most of which are kept in circulation by the press, and by
ill-informed individuals like you.


> p.s. don't be so hostile. you might even learn something.

I'm not hostile. I'm playing trial lawyer and verbally pushing you into a
corner from which you cannot escape. It's a valid debate technique, and you
don't like it.