"sf" > wrote in message
...
> Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people have
> been shot.


Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.

But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:48:21 PM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people have
>
> > been shot.
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
>
>
>
> But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.

I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs" can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.

--Bryan

On Jan 22, 3:48*pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. *Multiple people have
> > been shot.
>
> Don't forget the one yesterday. *Five got killed.
>
> But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.

Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
EACH.

Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
Amendment rights," because that is not logical.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
>
> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> N.


Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
want to limit her to 7 rounds?

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy2 wrote:
>>
>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>
>> N.
>
>
> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really want
> to limit her to 7 rounds?
>

Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy2 wrote:
>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>
>>> N.
>>
>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really want
>> to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>
>
> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>


Yep.

On 22/01/2013 5:39 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>
>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really want
>> to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>
>
> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>

The more rabid gun nuts will cite the studies that point to the millions
of times citizens have used guns to defend themselves. I had to wonder
as I listened to the numbers grow almost expodentially larger.
You hear a noise in your garage, grab your handy gun to go out and
confront the the home invaders.... raccoon... home successfuly defended
with a gun.

"Chemo" > wrote in message
...

According to the CDC, there are 84 gun deaths per day, on average, in the
U.S.

Is that an an acceptable price for your "right" to own guns?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:43:27 -0800 (PST), Chemo
> wrote:

>
>
> PEOPLE ASK WHY?
> Why Carry a Gun?
> My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's
> life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
> usually it's when he becomes too old to take a butt whoopin.'
> I don't carry a gun to kill people.
> I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
> I don't carry a gun to scare people.
> I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
> I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
>
> I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
> I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
> I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
> world.
> I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
> I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
> I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
> I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
> myself for failing to be prepared.
> I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
> I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and
> not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
> I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
> I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a
> cowboy.
> I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
> I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
> ones they love.
> I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
> I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
> inadequate.
> I don't carry a gun because I love it.
> I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it
> meaningful to me.
> Police protection is an oxymoron.
> Free citizens must protect themselves.
> Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
> the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the
> mess.
> I carry a gun because God gave me the Right to do so; it is
> inalienable.

What a load of cr*p.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Jan 22, 3:52*pm, "graham" > wrote:
> "Chemo" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> According to the CDC, there are 84 gun deaths per day, on average, in the
> U.S.
>
> Is that an an acceptable price for your "right" to own guns?

I suppose if someone breaks into your house and want to hurt you, your
wife or you kids you're just gonna tell him to please leave.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Even a low life burglar or a thug falls under the category of tyranny.

On 2013-01-23, Janet > wrote:
> In article <5ca8542b-e8a7-490a-bae6-457a05028217

>> I carry a gun because God gave me the Right to do so

> She did? Which religion is that, then?

Mine

On 1/22/2013 5:43 PM, Chemo wrote:
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
> of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
> were rounded up and exterminated.


Gun control in German was instituted after WW1. In 1938, the laws were
actually relaxed to make it easier for German citizens to own guns.
Jews were not prohibited from owning weapons but they were prohibited
from manufacturing or selling them.

Of the 13 million who were killed, 6 million were Jews, the rest were
Romanians, Poles, Slavs and Russian POW's..... none of which were
affected by German gun laws.

The Holocaust was one of the most horrible things in history, but to
link it to the issue of gun control is a bit of a reach.

For more information, you could read:

Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns)
were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in
1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler
became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government
got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his
predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for
example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase
permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years;
the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from
one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition
or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped).
Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions
and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had
no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing
arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced
the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were
added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
http://www.natvan.com/national-vangu...gunhitler.html


George L

On Jan 22, 3:57*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:43:27 -0800 (PST), Chemo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > * * PEOPLE ASK WHY?
> > * * Why Carry a Gun?
> > * * My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's
> > life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
> > usually it's when he becomes too old to take a butt whoopin.'
> > * * I don't carry a gun to kill people.
> > * * I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
> > * * I don't carry a gun to scare people.
> > * * I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place..
> > * * I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
>
> > I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
> > I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
> > I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
> > world.
> > I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
> > I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
> > I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
> > I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
> > myself for failing to be prepared.
> > I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
> > I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and
> > not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
> > I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
> > I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a
> > cowboy.
> > I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
> > I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
> > ones they love.
> > I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
> > I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
> > inadequate.
> > I don't carry a gun because I love it.
> > I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it
> > meaningful to me.
> > Police protection is an oxymoron.
> > Free citizens must protect themselves.
> > Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
> > the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the
> > mess.
> > I carry a gun because God gave me the Right to do so; it is
> > inalienable.
>
> What a load of cr*p.
>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

You can try to protect yourself with a spoon if'n you want but not me.

On 22/01/2013 8:54 PM, Chemo wrote:

>> PIggybacking, Chemo has outdone itself this time, swimming in the cosmic
>> stream of utter bullshit. Seriously. I've heard some ignorant shit but that
>> will easily be in the top ten most ignorant ideas I will hear in 2013. It
>> might indeed top the list of ****ed up insidiously insane thinking.
>>
>> It makes me hope Chemo doesn't have any weapons and stays away from theaters
>> and schools.
>
> I have plenty of weapons and know how to use them.
>

I have lots of firearms, know how to use them and, more important, know
how to keep them safely locked up so that no one gets hurt.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:43:27 PM UTC-6, Chemo wrote:
>
>
> Why Carry a Gun?
>
>
>
> I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
>
> I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
>
The folks who want to stockpile military style weapons do not merely "understand
the limitations of government." It's more like, "We reserve the right to take
up arms in acts of treasonous insurrection against a government legitimately
elected in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.."

That's Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh bullshit.

Read this:
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destr...trols-1.366251

I'm not a gung ho anti gun person. I believe in the Castle Doctrine, and even think that folks should be allowed to have a sawed off shotgun for home protection as well as a handgun. I am very pro hunting, even though I don't hunt myself, but the NRA supports the fringe of gun nuts--those who keep guns to defend themselves from the "jack-booted thugs," which really means Federal Marshals, the FBI and the ATF.

There was one story I read about a gun shop owner who was no longer going to sell assault rifles. He said the decision might well cost him his business, but after Newtown he could not in good conscience sell AR-15s and the like. I think that if a gun shop or two in each metro area were to come out publicly with that policy, then hunters and regular gun owners who want a gun for personal protection or sport could feel good about patronizing that business, knowing that they weren't supporting a shop that endorses traitors to make a buck.

It's like this; no one but kooky "animal rights" fruitcakes wants to ban
legitimate hunting weapons. Most non-gun owners, like myself, fully support the
right of responsible citizens to keep guns for defense against home invaders,
and store owners to have guns to protect their businesses. We also support the
possession of assault weapons by active members of state militias (the National
Guard) and military reservists. We want to see our state and local police
better armed than gangsters.

Many folks who support concealed carry only support the "right" to own assault
weapons because they feel that the traitors are natural allies against any expansion of handgun control.

> Police protection is an oxymoron.
> Free citizens must protect themselves.

> Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland 's government
> trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun
> related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no brainer!

For every Switzerland, there are far more Somalias and Afghanistans. With all
those exclamation marks, that looks like something written by Kuthe, except he
isn't a gun nut. Switzerland is unique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Tell me I'm wrong. Make a case for rapid fire semi-automatics with large magazines. Tell me that there is no connection between the "slave patrol" racists of the 18th and 19th centuries and the circumstances in which Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were killed by White vigilantes. Tell me, and everyone else, that the deaths of the children in Newtown represent the cost of freedom.

--Bryan

With all due respect, God didn't give you any rights.

N.

"Chemo" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 3:40 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 5:39 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland 's government
trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun
related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no
brainer!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly twice the death rate from guns as Canada and over 15 times that of
the UK.

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Nancy2 wrote:
>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>>
>>>> N.
>>>
>>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
>>> want to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>>
>
>
> Yep.
>

Nope. Extremeley rare. So rare they always make national news. We have
nearly 30 million guns in the US. By your theory we should be a very safe
country. As it is we rank very far down the list as the most dangerous.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:37:25 -0800 (PST), Chemo
> wrote:

>
> You can try to protect yourself with a spoon if'n you want but not me.

I am not scared of my shadow, apparently unlike you.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:26:20 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

>
> "Chemo" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 22, 3:40 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> > On 22/01/2013 5:39 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >
> Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland 's government
> trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun
> related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no
> brainer!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nearly twice the death rate from guns as Canada and over 15 times that of
> the UK.
>
Switzerland was supposedly "neutral" in WWII, which just makes them a
ball-less nation that's acting like it's willing to fight when the
opportunity arises. Women didn't even get suffrage in Switzerland
until 1971. I have absolutely NO respect for that lily livered
country.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Nancy2 wrote:
>>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>>>
>>>>> N.
>>>>
>>>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>>>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
>>>> want to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>
> Nope. Extremeley rare. So rare they always make national news. We have
> nearly 30 million guns in the US. By your theory we should be a very safe
> country. As it is we rank very far down the list as the most dangerous.
>

300 million guns.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:12:47 -0800, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

> His sanity was settled a long time ago.
>
Yes, insanity.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 22/01/2013 6:43 PM, Chemo wrote:

> Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland 's government
> trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun
> related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no
> brainer!



I bet you would like to think that is true, but it isn't.

Switzerland's total firearm-related death rate is 3.84. Their firearm
homicide rate is o.53 Compare that with :

Finland 0.26
France 0.22
Austria 0.18
New Zealand 0.17
Estonia 0.30
Slovenia 0.05
Belgium 0.29
Canada 0.5
Macedonia 0.04
Portugal 0.48
Czech Rep. 0.12
Lithuania 0.24
Georgia 0.23
Sweden 0.19
Denmark 0.22
Latvia 0.18
Bulgaria 0.23
Italy 0.36
Kuwait 0.36
Germany 0.06
Australia 0.09
Hungary 0.13
Cypress 0.24
Spain 0.15
Netherlands 0.20
Taiwan 0.13
Belarus 0.13
Ukraine 0.35
UK 0.04
Poland 0.02
Singapore 0.07
Romania 0.04
Hong Kong 0.12
Mauritius 0.00
Qatar 0.18
South Korea 0.04
Azerbaijan 0.04

Dammit. Don't you hate when the facts disagree with you factoids and the
opinions you base of those falsehoods.

On 23/01/2013 10:06 AM, Janet wrote:
>
>>>> On 22/01/2013 5:39 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>> Switzerland issues every household a gun!
>
> You're badly misinformed.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...tzerland#Army-
> issued_arms
>
> "Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50
> rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that
> was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case
> of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007
> this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia
> members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity)
> are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest
> of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the
> event of an emergency.".



Dammit.You gotta hate it when false claims and opinions hit the brick
wall of facts.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:43:27 PM UTC-6, Chemo wrote:
>
> Why Carry a Gun?
> I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
> I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
>
The folks who want to stockpile military style weapons do not merely "understand the limitations of government." It's more like, "We reserve the right to take up arms in acts of treasonous insurrection against a government legitimately elected in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America."

That's Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh bullshit.
Read this:
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destr...trols-1.366251


I'm not a gung ho anti gun person. I believe in the Castle Doctrine, and even think that folks should be allowed to have a sawed off shotgun for home protection as well as a handgun. I am very pro hunting, even though I don't hunt myself, but the NRA supports the fringe of gun nuts--those who keep guns to defend themselves from the "jack-booted thugs," which really means Federal Marshals, the FBI and the ATF.

There was one story I read about a gun shop owner who was no longer going to sell assault rifles. He said the decision might well cost him his business, but after Newtown he could not in good conscience sell AR-15s and the like. I think that if a gun shop or two in each metro area were to come out publicly with that policy, then hunters and regular gun owners who want a gun for personal protection or sport could feel good about patronizing that business, knowing that they weren't supporting a shop that endorses traitors to make a buck.

It's like this; no one but kooky "animal rights" fruitcakes wants to ban legitimate hunting weapons. Most non-gun owners, like myself, fully support the right of responsible citizens to keep guns for defense against home invaders,and store owners to have guns to protect their businesses. We also support the possession of assault weapons by active members of state militias (the National Guard) and military reservists. We want to see our state and local police better armed than gangsters.

Many folks who support concealed carry only support the "right" to own assault weapons because they feel that the traitors are natural allies against any expansion of handgun control.

> Police protection is an oxymoron.
> Free citizens must protect themselves.
> Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland 's government
> trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun
> related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no brainer!

For every Switzerland, there are far more Somalias and Afghanistans. With all those exclamation marks, that looks like something written by [a certain poster to this newsgroup], except he isn't a gun nut. Switzerland is unique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland


Tell me I'm wrong. Make a case for rapid fire semi-automatics with large magazines. Tell me that there is no connection between the "slave patrol" racists of the 18th and 19th centuries and the circumstances in which Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were killed by White vigilantes. Tell me, and everyone else, that the deaths of the children in Newtown represent the cost of freedom.

--Bryan, who tried to post that last night, but it isn't showing up

On 23/01/2013 10:28 AM, Bryan wrote:

>
>
> Tell me I'm wrong. Make a case for rapid fire semi-automatics with
> large magazines. Tell me that there is no connection between the
> "slave patrol" racists of the 18th and 19th centuries and the
> circumstances in which Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were killed by
> White vigilantes. Tell me, and everyone else, that the deaths of the
> children in Newtown represent the cost of freedom.
>


I won't even try. I am a gun owner and shooter. I have belonged to a
pistol club for about 20 years. I never used to go that often but last
summer I moved to an outdoor range that is close to home. Being outdoors
I have more shooting options. I occasionally shoot skeet with my old
double barrel side by side. Most of the time I am on the hand gun range
or shooting a .22, .303 or 7.62 on the rifle range. I shoot at paper
targets.

I get a kick out of the dorks that show up in camo or in tactical gear.
They go to the action range and blow off hundreds of dollars in
ammunition at a target 10 yards away. They are thrilled to get 80% of
their shots into the bulls eye of the club targets, designed for
sighting in at 100 yards.

I don't buy the argument about being armed to fight the government. It
ain't going to happen. They have artillery, helicopter gunships and
more. The best they can hope for is to be well armed terrorists.
I am no a big fan of castle laws. Human life is worth more than
property. You should not be able to kill to protect property. And you
sure as hell don't need multiple high capacity magazines to defend your
home from burglars. You fire off 40 rounds at a home invader, you are
doing it wrong and run the risk of hitting an innocent bystander.

zxcvbob wrote:

> > Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> > assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> > with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition?

> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
> want to limit her to 7 rounds?

Who dreamed that one up?

Nancy2 wrote:

> With all due respect, God didn't give you any rights.

Look out for the swarm. You just dynamited a huge hornets' nest.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I won't even try. I am a gun owner and shooter. I have belonged to a
> pistol club for about 20 years. I never used to go that often but last
> summer I moved to an outdoor range that is close to home. Being outdoors
> I have more shooting options. I occasionally shoot skeet with my old
> double barrel side by side. Most of the time I am on the hand gun range
> or shooting a .22, .303 or 7.62 on the rifle range. I shoot at paper
> targets.

I like plastic water bottles for relaxing shooting, nice "blast", easy
to clean up, still recyclable, and cheap.

>
> I get a kick out of the dorks that show up in camo or in tactical gear.
> They go to the action range and blow off hundreds of dollars in
> ammunition at a target 10 yards away. They are thrilled to get 80% of
> their shots into the bulls eye of the club targets, designed for
> sighting in at 100 yards.

They're developing different skills that you are shooting long range at
a bench. They aren't dorks, they have different interests than you.

>
> I don't buy the argument about being armed to fight the government. It
> ain't going to happen. They have artillery, helicopter gunships and
> more. The best they can hope for is to be well armed terrorists.


Ask Asad how that's working out for him...

> I am no a big fan of castle laws. Human life is worth more than
> property.

Criminal life has no value.

> You should not be able to kill to protect property.

Feel free to not kill to protect your property, don't feel free to push
your feelings on me.

> And you
> sure as hell don't need multiple high capacity magazines to defend your
> home from burglars.

Yes, actually you do, case after case proves this. The recent one with
the revolver proves that a revolver is not reasonably adequate, 6 shots,
5 hits and the threat not actually neutralized, but at least discouraged
into retreat.

> You fire off 40 rounds at a home invader, you are
> doing it wrong and run the risk of hitting an innocent bystander.

I'm not going to stop firing until the threat is neutralized, however
many rounds that takes. I don't live in some horrid city, so I don't
have any notable innocent bystander threat.

On 23/01/2013 10:59 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition?
>
>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
>> want to limit her to 7 rounds?
>
> Who dreamed that one up?
>
>
>

The guy wearing a tin hat.

Bryan wrote:
>
> I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
> shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
> American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
> can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.

Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. But
you'd rather hear only from one side.

Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
(or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
is on anti-depressants. There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Jan 22, 3:48 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people
> > > have been shot.
> >
> > Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
> >
> > But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.
>
> Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
> EACH.
>
> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.

In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
able to run away.

What if he hadn't been alone? Does that make it clear?

On TV you've seen people get shot once and go down. That's not reality.
When police shoot someone it usually takes several carefully aimed shots.
It takes several shots to stop an attacking dog.

Mass shooters have the opportunity to shoot cowering people in the head.
That is the factor that makes the difference, not the type of gun.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:03:51 PM UTC-6, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
>
> > shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
>
> > American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
>
> > can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.
>
>
>
> Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. But
>
> you'd rather hear only from one side.
>
I don't listen to Progressive media any more than Conservative media. I stick to public radio, where they'll have one person on from Heritage, and another from Brookings, or one from The American Enterprise Institute, and another from Mother Jones. On the issue of gun control, they'd have someone from the NRA, and another person from Brady. In no case is there yelling, or making up stupid nicknames for the other side. They disagree, but civilly. Left wing radio (Pacifica) is batshit kooky. So is Right wing radio, and there's a lot more of it.
>
> Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
>
> (or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
>
> is on anti-depressants. There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
>
> the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.
>
Anyway, it was a joke. However stupid the listeners to Right wing radio are, even *they* wouldn't believe anything quite that wacky. Well, most of them wouldn't. At least I hope not.
>
--Bryan

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> Bryan wrote:
> >
> > I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
> > shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
> > American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
> > can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.
>
> Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. But
> you'd rather hear only from one side.
>
> Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
> (or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
> is on anti-depressants. There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
> the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.
>

The most recent case with the kid that killed his family appears to have
not been on psychiatric medication, however it appears he was isolated
and home schooled in an ultra religious family which would seem to be
comparably brain damaging.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> Nancy2 wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 3:48 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> > > "sf" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people
> > > > have been shot.
> > >
> > > Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
> > >
> > > But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.
> >
> > Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
> > EACH.
> >
> > Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> > assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> > with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> > in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> > Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> able to run away.

6 shots, 5 hits and fortunately he ran away. If he had been a psycho-ex
or had not been alone, those 6 shots would certainly have not been
enough to protect the woman and her children.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:13:18 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Nancy2 wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 3:48 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> > "sf" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people
>> > > have been shot.
>> >
>> > Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
>> >
>> > But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.
>>
>> Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
>> EACH.
>>
>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
>In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
>able to run away.
>

I think she was 5 for 6- but all in the head and shoulders from a few
feet away. That's the good and the bad of a .38-- a lady can shoot
it enough to be proficient- but you really need a head shot to stop
anyone. [for those who don't know the story- Google; Georgia woman
husband talking to 911]

>What if he hadn't been alone? Does that make it clear?
>
>On TV you've seen people get shot once and go down. That's not reality.
>When police shoot someone it usually takes several carefully aimed shots.
>It takes several shots to stop an attacking dog.

I wish that case was getting more press-- It also illustrates the
false impression so many folks have that just 'showing' a gun-- or
wounding an attacker will end an attack. If you aren't ready to take
the life-- find another way to avoid the confrontation.

Her husbands voice saying- shoot him again-- keep shooting. . . was as
big a part of her being alive as just having that gun.

The skeptic in me says there is more to this story than we know-- a
recently [well] trained gun toting woman repels an apparent burglar
who, instead of running when he found out someone was home, pursued
them through 2 locked doors to an attic- where he continued to attack
after being shot several times.

Jim

On Jan 23, 10:03*am, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Nancy2 wrote:
> > With all due respect, God didn't give you any rights.
>
> Look out for the swarm. You just dynamited a huge hornets' nest.

Damn, now you tell me. LOL.

N.

On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> able to run away.


Hit six times and "ran away"?????
I'll need a cite for that.



>

On Jan 23, 12:31*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> > Bryan wrote:
>
> > > I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
> > > shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
> > > American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
> > > can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.
>
> > Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. *But
> > you'd rather hear only from one side.
>
> > Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
> > (or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
> > is on anti-depressants. *There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
> > the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.
>
> The most recent case with the kid that killed his family appears to have
> not been on psychiatric medication, however it appears he was isolated
> and home schooled in an ultra religious family which would seem to be
> comparably brain damaging.

Do not forget to mention that he lived to play his "very violent"
video games, and that he wanted to kill more, maybe some people at
Walmart, and his girlfriend's family.

N.

John J wrote:

> >or making up stupid nicknames for the other side. They disagree, but civilly.
>
> An art you haven't mastered yet.

Can we call you John-John?